Downtown Circulator: Streetcars? Yes. Light Rail? No!

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post On a warm Friday afternoon many weeks ago I met some transit activist friends at Willie's. The main topic of discussion was the TIGER grant application that had just been submitted to the Federal Government regarding a downtown streetcar circulator. I emphasize streetcar because the very first few sentences of the grant application brought back bad memories of the ill-fated Citizens Light Rail Advisory Committee that was in my opinion steered toward certain failure. "The streetcar is a shorter version of the light-rail vehicle, but streetcars use the same tracks and electrical power systems as light rail." Kind of... I falter a little on the "same tracks" statement. I would feel more comfortable with a slight modification: "The streetcar is a shorter, lighter version of the light-rail vehicle, and while streetcars use the same gauge tracks and can run on the same electrical power systems as light rail, the roadbed infrastructure requires far less load-bearing capacity." It seems we have some one-trick-ponies involved in every rail project and they're bound and determined that any track laid in Kansas City has to be light-rail ready. I'm all for planning for the future, but until we more than double the density of our urban core I just don't see the need for tunneling down six feet or more to lay concrete infrastructure to support the eventuality of light-rail which may never come. And how is that density going to double? By throwing up some more suburban style two-story entertainment districts? Light rail tracks require massive excavation to lay the foundation to support the heavy vehicles. If the proposed downtown streetcar circulator is planned as a light rail corridor that just happens to have streetcars running on it, we are dooming ourselves to yet another attempt that will inflate costs, cause months of delays, and most likely uncover unforeseen difficulties that lie beneath our city streets. When they ran the new storm sewer down Huntington Road in my neighborhood there was more than one occasion that had contractors scratching their heads over schematics that didn't show an uncovered pipe or tunnel that had been there for close to a century. Fact is, we're not sure what lies under our streets on any given block. Ask Minneapolis about what happens when you run light rail down a major downtown city street. The tangled mess of telecommunications and utility lines buried under their planned light-rail route turned into a multimillion-dollar relocation headache. It costs tens of millions of dollars to move or adjust some of those lines, and just who is expected to foot that bill? The utilities? In the Minnesota case the whole thing ended up in court, costing even more cash and delays. Kansas City probably has an even more complicated network under our streets. Sewer, water and even steam lines won't be cheap to move. I don't think any of these companies will be very enthusiastic if told to move their lines on their own dime. Kansas City's original streetcar routes ran just fine without having a "big dig". Modern streetcars can do the same, but the planners need to be given some constraints. Namely, plan a streetcar system and not a light-rail system. Also, we need to plan a 21st Century streetcar system and not a 19th Century one. And the one-trick light-rail ponies? They need to move aside or move on.

Sidewalk Talk: Time To Enforce Our Ordinance

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Now that things have settled down a bit from our first real spate of serious winter weather in a few years, I think it's time to discuss some civic responsibility of which I'd wager the majority of Kansas Citians are not even aware. If you have a sidewalk running in front of your house or business, it is your responsibility to keep it passable year round. That means not letting your tree branches hang too low, not letting your ground cover or bushes cascade out over the right-of-way, and yes during the winter that means you have to make a reasonable effort to keep them clear of snow and ice. I had no idea about this responsibility when I bought my first house in Kansas City. Where I grew up we didn't even have sidewalks. It didn't become apparent to me that clearing my sidewalk was necessary but for my octogenarian neighbor across the street who had immediately adopted me the day I moved in. Helen was on fixed income and didn't own a car. She was completely dependent on public transportation, and if the sidewalks weren't clear she couldn't make her way to the bus stop. She was home bound or forced to take a taxi to run errands. Needless to say, once she explained this to me her sidewalks as well as mine were always cleared. If not by me, one of the other neighbors picked up the slack. KCTV 5 News reported recently about the trouble people have been having over the past few days getting around. Especially the disabled. I found it curious that a Public Works spokesperson stated that "there are no workers designated to enforcing the city mandate." I don't believe this to be correct. Not keeping your sidewalks clear is a code violation and we have codes inspectors. If they can write you up for peeling paint I think they can do the same for an impassable sidewalk. I've heard the arguments/rationalizations. What about people physically unable to clear their sidewalks? What if they can't afford to pay to have it done? Well that's what neighbors are for. Or students looking to earn community service hours. Cities that have much more snowfall than we do are stringent in enforcing their sidewalk ordinances. Somehow it gets managed and low-income seniors don't get fined or thrown in jail. It can be done. In a time where we talk about retaining jobs and productivity, how much economic activity is lost because transit dependent residents can't get to work or have to risk their lives in doing so? The ordinance is on the books. Either we should choose to enforce it, or remove it completely. I think we should enforce it. We can't be a "city that works" if we can't even be a city that walks. Credit kclightrail.com and Eric Rogers for photos.

American Airlines Overhaul Base. Clawbacks Never Existed.

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Update: And hopefully a happy one! NBC Action News is reporting that Kansas City is close to reaching a deal with Jet Midwest to take over the American Airlines Overhaul base. This is certainly good news! I hope it works out well for all parties. American had already negotiated an escape clause that freed them from the clawbacks if their operating losses exceeded $750 million during any four-quarter period and its fleet declined by 5 percent because of adverse conditions in the aviation market. So Kansas City made a bet on a declining industry that at the time knew how to do one thing very well; lose money. Time passed. American made no new investments in the overhaul base. The workforce did not turnover. Retiring workers were not replaced and if they were accepting applications they certainly weren't reading them. Kansas City officials paid no attention, or if they did they just didn't care. We had an arena and an entertainment district to build. Who could be bothered with a giant hangar? So now the base is officially closing. Not to worry say Kansas City Aviation Department officials. American is still on the hook to pay $23.55 million for their remaining 20 year lease. I hope we're not already counting that money. Keep in mind, American's lawyers are far better (and more numerous) than ours. If Kansas City couldn't get out of paying half a million dollars for the antics of a foul-mouthed "volunteer" in the Mayor's office, what makes us think we can take on a group of industry professional litigators whose job it is to get out of pesky little cash drains like leases on hangars they don't need? Besides, there's always bankruptcy reorganization which American seems to be teetering on with each passing year. Think they'll still be around 20 years from now? Anyone remember an airline called TWA? And where will Kansas City's place be in the long line of creditors? I hope aviation officials really are marketing our overhaul base. But to whom? Unfortunately I don't foresee a success story here. I hope I'm wrong.

Just What We Need. More Streets To Maintain!

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post UPDATE: The Planning and Zoning Committee pulled the issue from the agenda at the last minute and has postponed consideration of this ordinance until January 20th. The last couple of weeks it seems I've been echoing the sentiments of BlogKC.com. But they're doing such a good job over there it's difficult not to ride some coat tails. This week BlogKC takes issue with the annexation plans of a developer who thinks it's a really good idea to put a suburban style housing development in the flight path north of KCI. You've heard of "north of KCI" before. I think they call it "Iowa". Complete with winding streets terminating in culdesacs, the only thing this outdated development style is missing is back yard air raid shelters (pesky Khrushchev), a drive-in movie theater and a car dealership selling Chevys with tail fins. (I hear the new '57s have a bigger ash tray!) Several knowledgeable organizations have weighed in on the subject. First, back in 2008 the Platte County Planning and Zoning Commission voted six (6) to two (2) to deny the application. So the developer appealed. Again they were told to go pound sand. So the developer sued. The case was continued until March 13, 2010 to give the developer time to round up some support with the City of Kansas City. Surely our development at any cost city would be more reasonable. No such luck. "Bad idea" said the City Planning Commission. "Bad idea" said the KC Fire Department. "Bad idea" said MAST. "Bad idea" said the KC Police Department. "This all seems like a bad idea but we're not really against it, kind of..." said the Aviation Department. "Bad idea" said the Water Department. So this Wenesday, right in the middle of what is predicted to be a third snow storm that our Public Works Department will not be able to adequately manage, the Planning and Zoning Committee consisting of Bill Skaggs, Cindy Circo, John Sharp, Ed Ford and Beth Gottstein will be making their recommendation on adding an additional 316 acres to the 317 square miles we currently can't maintain. Of that group, Circo, Gottstein and Ford (along with Russ Johnson) are actually sponsors of the ordinance! I can understand either Ford or Johnson being a sponsor. Everyone deserves a fair hearing and this is in their district. As elected representatives they are supposed to bring their constituents' concerns before the council. But Circo and Gottstein? Of course I've given up a long time ago trying to figure out what those two are up to. Maybe the four council members sponsoring this ordinance know more than everyone else who has reviewed this plan for the last year and a half. Or maybe they know something we don't. But I doubt it.

Happy New Year and Thanks For Reading

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Thanks for reading everyone. 2009 was certainly an interesting year. But aren't they all? I'm not sure where 2010 will lead. I'm not even sure The Kansas City Post will see 2011, but I am sure I will remain engaged in Kansas City issues in one way, shape or form. Everyone please be careful this evening on what I like to call "Amateur Night". The police will be out in force. The streets are still in poor shape and I'm told they're going to shoot money at people in the P&L District. Sounds like a good night to stay close to home. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Beware Of Petitioners Promising Tax Relief

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post BlogKC writes a knockout post on the latest initiative to eliminate the 1% Kansas City Earnings Tax. I'm no fan of paying the tax but who is? Since my company is located out of state and I telecommute from KC, the Finance Department doesn't withhold the tax for me, so I get the extra impact of sitting down and writing that check every April. But pay it I do, every year. It's the price I choose to pay to live in urban Kansas City. Touted by the Libertarian ShowMe Institute and locally by The Missouri Record, the passionate arguments will resonate with many who have given up on the current administration in City Hall and the Brookside Bunker. "The beast will not curb its appetite--it must be starved" argues the TMR post. Perhaps. But as with most pundits, there are no suggestions as to how 40% of our general fund could be replaced. An argument is made by the Institute that incomes would increase. To use a complicated finance term; Duh! Incomes would increase by 1%. So what? It seems the primary argument is let's eliminate the tax and see what happens! So building light rail and "seeing what happens" was irresponsible but eliminating 40% of the general fund is sound economics?! So maybe we could make it up with sales tax? Hardly. Light rail opponents told us we could not bear a sales tax increase. Tony Botello of Tony's Kansas City calls sales taxes "regressive" in that they place a disproportionate burden on low income residents. BlogKC correctly points out that the shortfall would have to be made up with increased property taxes. So whom will be paying these new astronomical property taxes? Big business? Don't bet on it. With increased property taxes the cries from developers and commercial realtors will reach the rafters of wherever the clandestine PIEA meets. 353 tax abatements will continue and increase, placing more and more commercial properties on the tax free rolls. The era of the 20 year disposable building will become the norm. Step 1: Find a decrepit building, get your 20 year abatement, make minimal improvements, issue a press release touting "economic development" and then tear it down in year 19 before it gets re-assessed and returns to the tax rolls. Step 2: Repeat. If the 1% Earnings Tax is struck down, the burden will fall on the residential homeowner who can't depreciate a commercial asset like a building and then tear it down in 20 years. Property values will plummet by at least the amount of the increased tax. In the United States a person's house is their primary source of stored wealth. Hardest hit will be the generation approaching retirement and counting on a decent sales price for their family home so they can downsize and live a comfortable retirement. What will become of the fixed-income retiree living in a $150,000 house they've been in for forty years? Their income doesn't go up, but their property tax bill sure will, and their asking price will have just been reduced by the amount of the new hefty tax. Talk about regressive! Perhaps the ShowMe Institute can help them out.

City Council to Consider Campaign Finance Reform

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Chris Hernandez at NBC Action News reports that the City Council is considering enacting campaign contribution limits. The news conference was complete with all the usual platitudes about accountability and "restoring integrity to the political system." Wow. How about an enthusiastic golf clap everyone? I find it ironic that these stalwarts of integrity are the very same people who as candidates rushed to the trough during the free-for-all days of unlimited campaign contributions during their 2007 campaigns. Now they want limits? Easy enough to take that stance when you already have a six figure re-election campaign fund balance. I've written about this before. Can the Council actually look earnestly into the cameras and claim to be striking a blow for the average Kansas Citian? Apparently that answer is "yes they can". $1,500 is an outrageous amount to be called a limit, especially for an in-district race. If the Council really wants to level the playing field (trust me, they don't) why don't they enact a much lower individual contribution limit? How many readers of this blog can kick up $1,500 for their favorite council candidate? For most people that's half a year of car payments! How about they divide that $1,500 by 10 and make the limit $150? In my world that's still a sizable chunk of change. For a winning council candidate that's a lunch tab. What I don't understand is why the fear of grass roots candidates? Actually I completely understand the fear. The question is rhetorical. When your best attribute is your Rolodex of wealthy friends, the last thing you want is to have that advantage taken away. Let's just look at the in-district races for example. Candidate A has been a regular in the pages of The Independent for years. Candidate A calls up five friends and asks them to donate what they can. Since Candidate A runs in a circle of friends who can regularly drop a cool grand on dinner and drinks, they each pop for the restrictive (ahem) limit of $1500. With five phone calls Candidate A has $7500 which is easily enough to cover the $1500 charge for the Citizens Association endorsement and still leaves $5000 for a blanket mailing of campaign literature across the entire district of registered voters. Candidate B has spent years working in the neighborhoods. Working a 9-5 day job and in their spare time serving on community boards, volunteering at church, working on zoning issues and generally trying to make their city a better place to live. Candidate B runs in a circle of friends who ride the bus to work, scramble to find dollars for an unexpected plumbing repair and generally hope to have enough money left over at the end of the month to take the kids to see the latest Pixar flick. Candidate B makes those five phone calls and maybe ends up with $20 from each friend for a grand total of $100. Not even enough for admission to one of Candidate A's fundraiser dinners. That's a level playing field? Historically the council races were a good old-fashioned street fight. Candidates knocked on doors, attended numerous forums throughout the neighborhoods and generally worked very hard to get their message across to the voters. Now, even the in-district races have become a pure fundraising contest. Forget the issues, experience or even aptitude for the job. How much money can you raise and how quickly can you raise it? Is that system giving us the best representatives, or those with the wealthiest connections? If the Council is serious about campaign finance reform, they need to make some serious changes. Until that time we can forget about Mr. Smith going to Washington. These days he can't even make it to City Hall.

Citizens Association: Glass Houses

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Recently the Citizens Association released a strongly worded letter directed at the Mayor and City Council. While I agree with the sentiments, I just can't take a call for ethics seriously from an organization so rife with conflicts of interest and outright disdain for a transparent political process. The CA even goes so far as to threaten the endorsements of the very council people they helped to get elected. Need I remind you, Citizens Association that those candidates paid good money for your endorsement? You can't sell something to someone and then complain about how they use your product. I believe the going rate for an in-district endorsement was $1,500 and an at-large was $2,500? Calling it a "reimbursement" does not take the stink away. You can buy "naturally processed organic fertilizer" in a pretty bag with fancy labels but when you get it home you find the contents still came out the back end of a horse. The Citizens Association is "issuing a call" to all of us "to become recommitted to cooperation, honesty, efficiency and transparency." Empty words. I urge those same citizens the CA is imploring to issue a call back to the Citizens Association to do the following: 1. End your paid endorsement system. I can't make it much simpler than that. Yes I've heard the rationalization from several directors in your ranks. "That's just the way it works." The current quid-pro-quo system at City Hall is also "just the way it works". Okay for you but not for them? If an ethics investigation were launched and had nothing to go on but your list of endorsements and your campaign finance reports; what conclusion do you think would be reached? 2007 Citizens Association Report - 8 days before primary 2007 Citizens Association Report - 8 days before general 2007 Citizens Association Report - April Quarterly 2007 Citizens Association Report - 30 days after general 2. Remove one of your biggest conflicts of interest by ceasing to funnel tens of thousands of dollars of "reimbursement" funds directly into one of your director's communications business. 3. Do not accept contributions from PACs or corporate interests. You're the "Citizens" Association. Not the Association for funneling PAC money. 4. Place a cap on contributions you accept from individuals. When one individual writes a check for $10,000 are the rest of us "citizens" to be expected to believe that no influence peddling exists? 5. Purge your ranks of politicians looking to put in their time, make the needed connections, and then rise from your organization with an endorsement all but guaranteed. How do you do that? Change your bylaws so that no director may gain an endorsement from your organization within five years of their last day of service. You're not alone in this CA. Other endorsing organizations in KC need to do the same. The best leadership is by example. Until your organization sets an example of unimpeachable processes, every strongly worded letter, every endorsement you sell make will ring hollow. Until you change your ways of politics as usual, your organization certainly isn't speaking for the citizens. At least not the citizens without $10,000 lying around.