Green sewers, or just a green bandwagon?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post It seems every politician is jumping on the green bandwagon these days. And why not? Who wants to be on record as being against helping the environment? But in their fervor to be on the side of righteousness, some politicos fail to educate themselves on what green solutions really are. Last month eight members of the City Council drafted and signed a letter to the City Manager calling for $500 million worth of green solutions to be included in the upcoming EPA mandated combined sewer remediation plan. The eight self-anointed environmental stewards complain that their consciences cannot withstand a sewer plan that only contains $30 million in green solutions. With an EPA deadline looming in July, it seems foolish to come in at the last minute with grandiose suggestions of environmentally friendly sewage treatment techniques. The time for that was months before the final project plans began taking shape. Massive civil engineering projects cannot be changed at the last minute like the wall color in your new kitchen. Where were councilmembers Ed Ford, Cindy Circo, Terry Riley, Beth Gottstein, Melba Curls, John Sharp, Cathy Jolly and Sharon Sanders Brooks months ago during the planning process? Certainly not studying sewage treatment techniques. Now in the eleventh hour they draft a letter asking for a half billion dollars for solutions of which they have no concept, only that they're green and that sounds really neat! At this stage the only goal should be satisfying the EPA so we don't end up in federal court. We have enough legal issues at City Hall right now. As far as "green solutions" I'm all for them. But isn't preventing raw sewage from flowing into open waters by definition "green?" It would seem we can always go back and install another rain garden or two after we stop dumping raw sewage. I'm certainly not against passive treatment techniques, but I'm more against flushing our toilets directly into Brush Creek. I also understand that even the current plan doesn't completely eliminate sewage overflow. If any extra money needs to be spent, it needs to be spent on a more sanitary plan, not a more trendy one. There are plenty of environmental issues for the newly minted environmentalists on the city council to pursue. Certainly most of them don't have a July deadline. What about clean air? We need look no further than our own back yards to find a major environmental hazard. According to the EPA, using a gas-powered lawnmowers for an hour generates as many volatile organic compounds—dangerous airborne pollutants as driving a typical car for 350 miles. With 54 million Americans mowing their lawns on a weekly basis, gas lawnmower emissions account for as much as five percent of the nation’s total air pollution. Beyond that, homeowners spill some 17 million gallons of gasoline every year just refueling their lawnmowers. Factor in gas-powered string trimmers and leaf blowers and those disturbing numbers continue to climb. Why not promote green initiatives for lawn care in Kansas City? And I don't mean drafting a letter to the City Manager asking him to "fix the air." Come up with the plan yourselves. You weren't elected to write position papers. I met most of you on the campaign trail and I don't recall "I'll write a memo" being an answer any of you gave at the campaign forums.

Regional Transit Needs A Regional Leader

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post A few weeks ago I attended a Mayor's Town Hall meeting in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The Mayor made some opening remarks during which he talked about his campaign rhetoric that "the first TIF plan that comes across my desk better be for the East side." He then went on to admit that he now realizes it was foolish to make such proclamations without being fully educated on the minutia of economic development in Kansas City. He explained that he did not realize that current economic development tools do not lend themselves to small-scale development. Was Mark Funkhouser actually admitting he was wrong? Perhaps there was hope after all. Of course within a few minutes he turned to the topic of light rail and made the definitive statement "any light rail plan has to go down Troost." So much for learning from your mistakes. Despite my skepticism about the Mayor's specific plan, a regional transit plan may actually be a possibility. With gasoline prices continuing their upward climb, people are starting to feel the pinch of commuting across our sprawling metro. Commuter bus routes are becoming overwhelmed with new riders and suburban municipalities are left scrambling to find funding to add capacity. Perhaps the concept of a true regional transit authority and funding mechanism finally makes sense to even the most obstinate of metro suburbanites. All things considered (my apologies to NPR) Mark Funkhouser is not the right leader for this initiative. Sometimes in order to lead you have to know when to step aside and I believe with all his troubles; a pending civil lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation, a pending lawsuit against the City Council regarding the City Manager contract, an openly hostile relationship with certain City Councilpersons and a growing number of Kansas City voters with buyer's remorse the mayor of Kansas City is not the leader we need for a regional cooperative. Steel plates still appear throughout the city improperly installed in direct defiance of the Mayor's own ordinance. It's impossible to put faith in someone to construct a multi-billion dollar transit system when he can't even oversee a simple street maintenance policy. A regional transit plan needs a regional leader. I believe the Jackson County Executive to be a far more logical choice to promote solutions to our transit woes. Two of the most transit hungry suburban municipalities (Blue Springs and Lee's Summit) lie within Jackson County. Mike Sanders may not want to step in and garner the appearance that he's trying to steal the Mayor's thunder, but I think now is the time to put the welfare of our citizenry above the possible hurt feelings of one (or two) individual(s) who most likely will be a private citizen by May of 2011. What say ye Mike Sanders? Your county needs you.

Downtown parking is not the problem

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post It's difficult to revive an urban center with people who are suburban minded. Kansas City wants to compete with Dallas, Minneapolis, and even Chicago, but we're trying to do so with leaders who seemed convinced that acres of blacktop parking lots are the answer. I'm consistently amazed annoyed by what seems to be the new slogan for downtown. "But where will I park?" Maybe if some of these self-appointed leaders would venture outside of Missouri once in a while they might get a sense of how vibrant urban centers actually work. Recently The Star's Kevin Collison penned a piece called "Seeing Red Over Meters" in which he quotes Jonathan Kemper, president and CEO of Commerce Bank, Downtown Council member, and board member of the Citizens Association. "It will drive people out of downtown" he grouses when referring the the idea that the City Council may raise parking meter rates to (gasp!) $1 and hour. Mr. Kemper then goes on to disparage hard-working police parking enforcement officials by calling them "nasty." Nice. The article goes on to mention a scientific poll conducted by the Star in which 90 percent of respondents thought downtown needed free parking. What a shocker. You need a scientific poll to tell you people like things that are free?! I think I just found my calling. I'm going to become a pollster. Maybe the airlines will pay me to conduct a scientific poll that people would prefer airfares to be free. I'm also pleased to announce that a group of six-year olds at my neighborhood playground explained to me that their lives would be significantly better if they each had a pony. The world runs on supply and demand. A simple price-elasticity graph will show you where to set the parking rates. Limited parking creates activity. People park farther away and walk, maybe patronizing a business on the way. People use cabs, ride the bus, carpool... That's called economic activity. Limited parking creates the need for good public transit. Higher parking meter rates create higher turnover. It keeps people moving. It opens up spaces at a higher frequency. In the business world that's called turnover or "churn" and that's a good thing. Least of all, but also important, yes parking meters provide revenue for City coffers. We might even need more of those "nasty meter maids" as Mr. Kemper so graciously refers to them. All that activity sounds pretty good to me. No urban renaissance has ever been created or sustained by free parking. It's unfortunate that such a powerful organization like the Downtown Council can be so short-sighted. Yes downtown is enjoying a resurgence. Yes we need to keep that momentum going. But the whole reason for pursuing activity on the streets is to generate commerce (no pun intended). And even the simple act of harvesting a few quarters out of a parking meter is far better than what we had just a few short years ago. A buck an hour is not going to keep people away if your product is good enough. Perhaps the downtown leaders should concentrate on that side of the equation. Make downtown a place where people will gladly pay $1 just to be there. After all, what good is a product if you have to give it away for free?

Make sure you read that contract...

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post On April 11th the City Attorney received a letter from Cordish's attorneys regarding the status of what they feel should be an exclusive festival liquor license for the Power & Light District. Tony Botello at TonysKansasCity.com was the first to hit the blogosphere with the news. It seems that Cordish is upset with current legislation in the works down at Jefferson City that would allow the creation of "festival districts" throughout the city of Kansas City. I'm not an attorney, but I do know how to read. The letter repeatedly references Section 9.1(k) of the MDA (Master Development Agreement). I managed to obtain a copy of the MDA. All 184 pages of it. 9.1(k) basically says "you have to fulfill 9.1(a-j) or we won't close the deal." Fair enough. Any contract expects both sides to perform. I think what Cordish is most worked up about is Section 9.1(g). Here it is in its entirety. (g) Liquor Licenses. Developer requests that the City shall use its best efforts to enable Developer or its designee and any tenant of the Urban Mixed-Use Project designated by Developer to obtain and utilize for a term of ninety-nine (99) years commencing on the Substantial Completion of the Urban Mixed-Use Project an arena type liquor license similar to the arena license utilized at Power Plant Live, Baltimore, Maryland or an Entertainment Destination Center License similar to the license issued for Fourth Street Live, Louisville, Kentucky. Such license is intended to permit designated Tenants to sell and serve open containers of alcoholic beverages in the common areas of the Urban Mixed-Use Project and on the streets and sidewalks surrounding the Urban Mixed-Use Project and shall permit their customers to consume such alcoholic beverages in such areas. The parties acknowledge that a change in Missouri law may be required. The letter stipulates that while the advantage of exclusivity is not explicitly mentioned in the contract, there were verbal assurances and subsequent actions by the City which led Cordish to believe that they would continue to have the only festival license in Kansas City. Then something changed and in the past year not only is the City failing to protect that exclusivity, they are actively lobbying to eliminate it by passing new legislation that would allow festival licenses throughout Kansas City. The irony is not lost on me that when the City Manager began pressuring Cordish last year to live up to their verbal promises of having the complete district open by the fall of 2007, the developer was quick to fall back on the "read the contract" defense saying that while they may, or may not have implied they would make an attempt at opening, the actual contract gives them until the end of 2008. Basically they told the City to go pound sand. Now with the tables turned, Cordish finds itself in the weak position of exclaiming "but you told us..." and the City attorney can simply say "read the contract." Digging a little deeper, I have to wonder. Why expand the festival licenses? Why now? What has changed? According to Cordish's attorneys, "The passage of the legislation creating festival districts is bad public policy that our client believes is motivated solely by individual political contributions to individual Council persons." Political contributions affecting our city government? Say it ain't so! But please do say who gave what to whom. Inquiring minds want to know! Vague implications of graft don't carry much weight. I'm not convinced that the loss of an exclusive festival liquor license will result in decreased revenues for the Power & Light District. But in the final analysis I have to say I think it is counterproductive that our City government is pursuing legislation that could possibly (and I'm only conceding could) have a detrimental effect on a project in which we are all so deeply invested. That MDA may have been signed by a previous administration, but we the taxpayers are left to pay for it. As my dad used to say "you dance with the gal ya brung" and in this case, like it or not, we brought Cordish to this dance. It's up to us to make the best of it.

Why all the outrage? Really???

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Years ago my first job at King Radio was a dream come true. I was able to stay in Kansas City and work in the high tech field of avionics. Then the 90's hit and the economy took a downturn. Companies just weren't interested in upgrading their corporate jets and the airlines decided they could make their older avionics last a few more flight hours. Our business began to suffer, and subsequently the layoffs (at that time they were called Reductions In Force "RIFs") began. Salaries were frozen and grim-faced former employees were seen carrying their belongings to the parking lot on a quarterly basis. Those were dark times for all of us. But at least with the salary freeze we could take some small solace in knowing that nobody's lot was improving while others were kicked to the curb. I was one of the fortunate ones who managed to escape the ax. During that time my five-year employment anniversary came around. It was customary to celebrate the milestone with a cake and congratulations from your coworkers. When my boss came around and asked me what kind of cake I would like, I replied "none." I told him I just didn't feel right "celebrating" the fact that I was still employed after having helped carry friends and coworkers belongings to their cars. Not being one to appreciate bucking tradition, he was not happy with me. I'm sure some choice comments were placed in my employment file. He informed me in a threatening manner that I would change my mind. I didn't. Recently much has been made about the mayor and council's "rubber-stamp" vote approving their own pay raise. Some council members have hidden behind the charter claiming their hands were tied because the previous council had voted the raise in place. The mayor... Well the mayor has told us all that he needs the money. Yowzers... I like Lynn Horsely over at the Star and think she does an excellent job covering the City Hall beat. However, I have to take issue with her recent Prime Buzz post titled "Why all the outrage now over council pay?" Lynn argues correctly that the city charter prohibits any sitting council from either raising or lowering their salary. This is true. You can read it for yourself. Article II, Division 1, Section 205. Sec. 205. Salary. (a) Establishment of salary. The salary of the Mayor and members of the Council shall be established by the Council, and may not be reduced or increased during any term. The salary for all members of the Council, except the Mayor, whether elected by district or at-large shall be identical. The Council may provide an additional amount to the Mayor pro tem reflecting the additional duties and responsibilities assumed by that member. What the charter doesn't say is the mayor and council can't vote to leave their salaries unchanged. I've read through this section several times. It's not there. There is nothing in the charter that prevents a council from self-imposing a salary freeze. I find it ironic that a legislative group can expend so much time and energy combing through the charter to justify their decision about extending a new contract to the City Manager but can't spend five minutes to read one sentence about salaries. At a time when many city workers will be forced out the door to find work in a tough job market, it's more important than ever to show leadership. Leadership is not firing people while giving yourself a raise. Leadership is also not hiding in a back room while the rest of your council colleagues face the tough decisions in the light of day. Councilperson Beth Gottstein may feel she is being magnanimous by offering to give back her raise to the general fund, but running (literally) from the council chambers rather than making a tough vote is not leadership. Leaders make good decisions. Leaders make bad decisions. But leaders don't shrink from the mantle of making any decision at all. What good is a legislator who only votes when it's easy? The mayor and council have missed the mark on this one. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head on this vote. Contrary to what some may think, there were options. If there weren't, there wasn't a need for a vote in the first place. I wonder what last week's vote would have been had the previous council established the pay rate to be minimum wage? Something tells me the vote would have been a little different.

Payday Loans Ordinance: Right idea, wrong implementation

By Nicole Forsythe The Kansas City Post On April 8th we will be asked to vote on a new ordinance restricting the operations of so-called “payday loan” offices in Kansas City. I fully support parts of this legislation such as the exterior signage limitations and location restrictions and commend the city council's attempt at protecting Kansas City neighborhoods. However, I wholly disagree with the annual licensing fees contained in the ordinance. What’s the problem? The fees are ineffective and inefficient in that: 1) The ordinance imposes only a $1000 renewal fee – enough to make payday loan establishments complain a little, but not enough to shut one down. 2) The ordinance ultimately results in a tax on the poor because the payday loan establishments will pass along the cost of the fee to its customers. 3) The ordinance directs this “tax on the poor” back to the city. It is abhorrent for payday loans to make money off of poor people, but through this ordinance, the city will too. 4) The only way to put payday loans out of business it to take away their customer base. Any fees that are collected through this ordinance should be directed to consumer education and counseling – not to the city. 5) The fees collected through this ordinance are purported to fund 2 or 3 inspectors. I am skeptical the predicted licensing revenues will account not only for the cost of salaries and benefits of the inspectors but the peripheral costs of administration and enforcement as well. The city can barely handle the financial problems it already has – why take on more? 6) Banking regulation is best handled at the state level, or perhaps, federal level. The payday loan problem is too complex to handle at the city level with the exception of density zoning which has proven successful in other communities. I’m sure this attempt at a crack-down on payday loan establishments will pass. After all, it feels right to tax the bad guys – it makes voters feel like the government is doing something to help the community. Unfortunately, I don’t think helping the community is that simple. Consequently, I won’t be voting to impose a minuscule fee on payday loan establishments – even though I think they’re bottom-feeding scam artists.

Attract new industry, not old ideas

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Kansas City has long sought to become a leader in industry. In the 60's it was defense manufacturing with Bendix. In the 70's Armco Steel was the hope for many to maintain a strong base of manufacturing jobs. In the 80's, the emergence of Sprint promised to make KC the backbone of a fiber optic long distance telecom network. The 90's saw the emergence of bio-sciences led by The Stowers Institute. With each passing decade we attempt to latch on to one particular industry in the hopes that we have found the it thing. The only common denominator seems to be that we continue to fail in learning the lesson that singularity of focus in economic development leads to eventual failure. With the recent announcement that Smith Electric Vehicles is coming to the United States, and intends to build a manufacturing facility in North America, it stands to reason that EV's (Electric Vehicles) will soon grace the streets of our more progressive U.S. communities. It's no longer a question of if the United States will begin pursuing alternative fuel transportation modes, but when. I am the first to admit that the alternative fuel industry is hardly mature. The metro only has one EV dealership to date and it remains to be seen whether suburbanites will catch on to electric cars as anything more than a fad. Solar power is viable today, but only in states with significant subsidies. Our current group in Jefferson City is more enamored with ethanol than a truly clean and renewable resource like the sun. Wind and hydrogen power also show promise but are mired in technological problems that have yet to be solved. Yet even with these limitations, the promise of a new industry based around sustainable energy is too great to ignore. The Automotive X-Prize will elevate the profile of real solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. Tesla Roadster has gone into production of their Lotus-designed electric sportscar. Phoenix Motorcar is already making fleet deliveries of their electric SUT (Sport Utility Truck) and will soon follow up with an electric SUV. Even General Motors is still sticking by their assurances that the Chevy Volt is more than just vaporware and will grace showroom floors in 2010. Back to Smith EV. Usually by the time a company issues a press release, the opportunity to make the pitch to Consider Kansas City has probably passed, but I think it is important for our economic development officials to stay on top of new opportunities involving sustainable energy. Once Smith EV arrives and begins making inroads into the US delivery truck industry, other manufacturers are sure to follow suit. These are the kinds of gambles we should be taking in the area of creating new jobs. I'm certainly not advocating pursuing green industry while forsaking all others. We should certainly continue to invite all types of industry to locate in the metro. It just makes sense to me that if everything is going to be "up to date in Kansas City" we need to be up to date on what's coming over the horizon, not fading into the past.