Subverting Democracy On A Technicality
| By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post  Love it or hate it, everybody seems to have a strong opinion about light rail in Kansas City. Until today that debate has been waged on blogs, letters to the editor and the ubiquitous yard sign wars that break out every time a contested ballot issue arises. There is certainly much to criticize about this latest light rail plan. I realize repairing our sewers and other infrastructure should be a higher priority. But the decision to make transit a higher priority has been made by our elected officials. The council has decided that light rail should be voted on first. Agree or disagree, Kansas Citians will be given the opportunity to weigh in on that priority in a few short weeks. Unless of course, the Committee for Sensible Transit has their way. Today, a member of the Committee for Sensible Transit filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the light rail issue from the ballot. Based on a technicality, the lawsuit contends that the city council did not follow charter procedure in putting the light rail issue on the November ballot. A technicality. It's obvious the Committee for Sensible Transit is not acting in a good faith manner trying to protect the citizenry from some horrible wrong. What they're actually trying to do is subvert the democratic process completely because they fear the outcome of a public vote. I don't care about either side's motivation in this debate. It can be argued that both pro and con light rail forces are acting in their own self-interests. That's the nature of the beast. What I do care about is using legal maneuvering to subvert the democratic process. My hope is this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. Who knows. Perhaps the Committee for Sensible Transit has given the pro light rail movement a villain to rally against. I have to admit I'm tempted to vote "Yes" for light rail just on the principle that I have nothing in common with the backers of the Committee for Sensible Transit and I find their tactics abhorrent. I've always said that no matter how rich or powerful someone is we are all equals when we step into the voting booth. Maybe that's what the Committee for Sensible Transit is afraid of. |
posted by Mark at 11:19 AM
Comments on "Subverting Democracy On A Technicality"
-
Anonymous said ... (12:59 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:22 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:38 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (3:48 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (4:02 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (4:55 PM) :
-
Johnny Cochran said ... (5:01 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (5:13 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (5:24 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:43 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:56 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:15 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:05 PM) :
-
DKC said ... (12:27 PM) :
-
Joe said ... (2:56 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:03 AM) :
-
Joe said ... (12:40 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:50 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (1:33 PM) :
-
Joe said ... (1:56 PM) :
-
Alan Birch said ... (12:28 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (1:40 PM) :
-
Joe said ... (4:41 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:32 PM) :
-
Alan Birch said ... (8:34 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (8:08 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (8:15 AM) :
-
Joe said ... (9:05 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:39 AM) :
-
MichelleD said ... (1:02 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (2:56 PM) :
-
Alan Birch said ... (4:49 PM) :
-
Alan Birch said ... (5:03 PM) :
-
DKC said ... (5:15 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:27 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (12:37 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:34 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (9:31 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (1:55 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:12 PM) :
post a commentJust a few weeks ago you wrote a post titled "Do nothing ordinances: Review, revamp or repeal ".
You lamented that "After all, what good is a law that doesn't work? ".
Here we have a law that was not followed and now you are complaining when someone wants to actually enforce the law.
Seems a little hypocritical. If you are unhappy that someone wants to enforce a law, rather than criticizing them for actually wanting to follow the rule of law, maybe you should take your own advice and promote the gov to "spend some time reviewing existing ordinances, determining their effectiveness and deciding whether to rework, or repeal them outright."
Looks like the anti-rail Nutter NIMBY's are out in force on the blogs.
I took this post to mean let the voters decide. What's hypocritical about that? Filing a lawsuit over the definition of “not enacted for the immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health, safety or morals” is not what I call "enforcing the law."
Go back to ripping off old people with reverse mortgages you Nutterite scumbag.
One man's technicality is another man's law.
Your argument is the same one used by people that say a search without a warrant is a technicality. It seems like any law you don't like is just a "technicality."
And I am not paid by Nutter or a NIMBY. A guy was shot in the back on the block where my children live.
The city says we can't afford more police that would save lives, but they say we can afford a billion dollars on light rail.
I say lets pass the sales tax and spend the money on lowering this city's murder rate instead of spending it on a train.
I would choose a safe and secure neighborhood over light rail any day.
First off let's avoid the name calling people. Leave that to me! ;-)
Second, since we're splitting hairs the Charter reads:
Sec. 503. Ordinances, when effective.
(a) Emergency ordinances and resolutions.
(1) Effective date. Emergency ordinances and resolutions shall take effect immediately following approval by the Mayor, or five days after passage if no action is taken by the Mayor to approve or veto the ordinance or resolution.
(2) Emergency declared. An ordinance declaring an emergency is an ordinance which in whole or in part is passed by the affirmative vote of nine members of the Council for the immediate preservation of the public peace, property, health, safety or morals, in which the emergency is set forth and defined in a preamble to the ordinance.
(3) Emergency recognized. An ordinance recognizing an emergency is an ordinance which in whole or in part falls within any of the following categories and is recognized in the ordinance as an emergency:
(A) Elections. Calls any election, or providing for the submission of any proposal to the people;
(B) Expenses of government. Makes an appropriation for the payment of principal or interest of the public debt, or for current expenses of the City government;
(C) Appropriation of money. Appropriates money;
(D) Public improvements. Relates to any public improvement to be paid for by special assessment, or to be paid wholly or in part by State or federal funds, or to any contract relating to the design, repair, maintenance or construction of a public improvement;
(E) Interfund borrowing. Authorizes borrowing of money from one fund of the City to another in anticipation of future revenue;
(F) Fixing interest rates. Fixes the interest rates on bonds;
What the Sensible Transit lawsuit alleges is that the requirements for an "emergency ordinance" were not met. What I interpret the Charter to say is there are many types of "emergency ordinances." One being "declaring an emergency" and another being "recognizing an emergency." It seems to me the lawsuit is alleging this ordinance to be "declaring an emergency" when I think most reasonable minds would agree it clearly is "recognizing an emergency" and therefore within the council's right per subsection "A) Elections".
It's funny how light rail supporters demonize anyone that disagrees.
I want the city to spend some extra tax money to slow down the murder rate instead of spending extra tax money on a train.
Because of that some guy calls me a NIMBY and accuses of selling bad loans.
I guess if you don't have facts on your side you go negative.
We should be able to lower the crime rate now even with or without a new sales tax. Hiring of more police officers does not guarantee a lower crime rate. Community activism and cooperation with the existing police we have would go just as far as hiring more police. It takes more than complaining about the murder rate and bashing public infrastrucutre improvements. These are two different subjects.
Nice analysis of the ordinance. You should file an amicus brief.
Who is the lawyer for the plaintiffs? And what is their irreparable harm?
Anyone that says more police won't help crime is living in la la land.
Community activism and cooperation with the existing police
That route does not seem to be working so far now does it.
Hiring of more police officers does not guarantee a lower crime rate.
Every study shows that additional police lower the crime rate.
http://www.fsu.edu/news/2005/06/24/more.cops/
"A Florida State University law professor who studied the effects of an increased police presence during high terror alert in Washington, D.C., says they do. And not by just a little bit either."
I can give you more studies (facts) if you want.
It takes more than complaining about the murder rate and bashing public infrastructure improvements.
I am not bashing public infrastructure, I am bashing our leaders that say our city does not have money for police but it does have money for trains.
There is only so much tax money to go around, so the two are not different subjects.
I am tired of kids getting shot up on my block. I call the police when we see things a miss. My neighbors look out for each other. You want a shiny new train. I don't f*cking want my child to get shot. The city says they can't help me because they don't have the money.
If the city doesn't have the money to save lives, then why does it have the money for your billion dollar train?
So it is a better democracy when the law is not followed? The reason for this requirement is so that railroad jobs tend to not occur. If walking through the legal requirements step by step is wrong then we better just all get law degrees and do everything by legal battle.
The emergency provision has been miss used and abused. We need to stop and consider what not caring about the letter of the law really means to us as a society.
What will it mean to our children?
Johnny,
Amica-what? (kidding)
I do not know who the plaintiff's attorney is. As far as irreparable harm, I do not know what that would be either. Are the plaintiffs harmed by the issue going to a vote or are they potentially harmed by the outcome of said vote? I personally think it's a long climb to prove that staging a democratic referendum is harmful.
As I implied in my editorial, I think the anti-rail forces are generating ill will towards their cause. I guess that's their business and they can certainly spend their money as they see fit. I for one become suspicious of their motivations when they resort to legal maneuvering.
Mark,
You say you're tempted to vote Yes. Does that mean you're currently against this light rail plan?
Anony 9:56AM,
Fortunately I still have some time to make my decision as far as how I will vote on light rail. Honestly I go back and forth.
On one hand I'm still angry that had light rail passed in 2001, it would be up and running today. On the other hand I see real problems with the behind the scenes machinations of how light rail will be implemented and run.
I'm leaning towards a "Yes" vote but since I'm conflicted I don't feel that coming out in support or opposition of this measure would be appropriate as my arguments either for or against would be luke warm at best. I think in order to be an advocate of something you should be passionate and informed. While I am informed, I have no real passion for or against this particular plan.
Is that wishy washy enough for you? ;-)
What are the benefits of light rail?
It runs the same route as the current bus routes. So:
1. Is it expected to have higher ridership? (any thing to back that up either way)
2. Will it cost less in yearly maintainence?
3. Will it be faster than the current bus on the same route?
4. What is the expected economic benefit?
5. What will happen if federal funding does not come through?
Light rail positives:
1. Powered by coal fired power plants.
2. Immutable routes set in concrete.
3. Will cost 200,000,000 more than projected.
4. Duplicates existing transportation systems.
5. Disrupts commerce along proposed route during a
recession.
6. Actual route not known.
7 Actual ridership not known.
8. At some point will kill a cat.
I think these are more than enough reasons to vote a resounding YES on November 4th.
I wrote and simultaneously approved this drivel.
Mark,
I posted the questions at 12:05pm. None of those questions have been answered by any light rail supporters (in any forum) and those types of questions are the thrust of the opponents of light rail.
Can you explain why you would vote for light rail when no information has been given on increased ridership, expected economic benefit, etc.
To me, when our leaders ask us to pay up to 1 billion dollars, I think it should be expected that they spell out the benefits. Here, no one has done that and many people don't seem to care. Remember the rolling roof? At least we were told that if that passed, we were guaranteed a super bowl. With light rail, no one will tell us anything about the expected benefits.
So would you explain your tepid endorsement of light rail and why I should vote that way and why I should ignore those unanswered questions.
thanks
Joe,
I guess what it comes down to for me is should we start collecting a tax for light rail or not? I would say to the average voter who supports the idea of fixed-guideway transit system that at the minimum this plan creates a funding base for light rail.
90% of light rail supporters would agree the spine needs to go north-south and roughly connect downtown to the Plaza. Does it really make a difference to the voter what street it travels on to accomplish that?
The more I think about it the more I actually like the vagueness of the plan. It allows flexibility for engineering changes without having to go back to the voters. What if we voted on a specific route and then during construction it was discovered that a particular segment had to be re-routed for some reason? Would construction have to stop while we voted on the change? Would another ridiculous lawsuit be filed?
Over the weekend I did some thinking about this and my support for light rail has gone from tepid to firm. Frankly there is no perfect time to undertake a major civil works project and in fact now is probably the best time for government to be creating jobs, albeit short-term ones.
Mark,
None of my questions were about the route, but all of your answers were about the route. Was that intentional on your part?
My questions concerned is this a good use of close to a billion dollars.
1. Will ridership increase? If so by how much?
2. Will this have a positive economic impact? If so how much.
I could care less about the route. Whatever route they pick, will be a route already covered by buses. If city leaders can not prove that ridership will increase, then why should we do it.
It could very well be that ridership increases minimally. If that is the case, then we have spent a lot of money for not much return. It could be that light rail construction shuts down many businesses and it takes years for them to come back.
Those are all questions that light rail supporters refuse to answer and light rail supporters ignore.
Do you disagree that the following questions should be thought about before we vote?
1. Is it expected to have higher ridership? (any thing to back that up either way)
2. Will it cost less in yearly maintainence?
3. Will it be faster than the current bus on the same route?
4. What is the expected economic benefit?
5. What will happen if federal funding does not come through?
OMG - felinicide! - I am definitely voting No!
Joe,
I haven't assumed a leadership role in the light rail initiative so I don't feel I have to research and answer anyone's questions. I am just a voter not unlike yourself.
It's obvious you are against light rail and that is your prerogative which I respect. I am for light rail but since I am not attempting to unduly influence anyone why should I engage in a debate?
The original purpose of this post is to point out that I wish to see the question of light rail decided at the ballot box, not the courtroom.
Mark,
It's obvious you are against light rail and that is your prerogative which I respect. I am for light rail but since I am not attempting to unduly influence anyone why should I engage in a debate?
So asking questions makes someone against it?
I could be persuaded for it if someone were to give me reasons to vote for it. You seemed to be for it, so I asked what your reasons for it are.
Rather than debating, I am just asking why you are for it. Is that such a bad thing?
Mark, I used to be a supporter of light rail, but this current vote is just ridiculous.
Where is the route? I heard that engineering studies are showing that neither Broadway nor Main can support the light rail tracks through midtown, so that means they are going to have to wipe out and run it through the middle of a neighborhood. Which neighborhood? Mine? Are they gonna condemn my house? Nobody knows, so nobody can so "no" for certain.
To everyone, remember, no matter where they run the route, its going to wipe out all of the existing small businesses along the route. So your vote "yes" for light rail is a vote "no" for existing small businesses.
Show me a hard budget, show me ridership projections, show me a solid route, and show me who is gonna benefit and who is not, and ONLY THEN will I consider voting for this thing...
"I heard that engineering studies are showing that neither Broadway nor Main can support the light rail tracks through midtown"
Alan,
That is a scare tactic put out by the anti-light rail crowd. It's along the same vein as '01 when they claimed that the JC Nichols Fountain would have to be removed (false) and that private residences would have to be torn down (also false). The statement that Broadway or Main cannot support the weight of light rail is only partially true. It's a carefully crafted statement to scare people like yourself. And well you should be. I too would be scared if a project was threatening my home, but in this case it is simply not the truth.
What is true is that there is no street anywhere in Kansas City that can support light rail. Because of the weight of the LRV's the footings under the tracks will need to go down about 6 feet in order to keep the weight from sinking the tracks or crushing any sewer or utility conduits underneath. That being the case, why would tearing through a neighborhood offer any advantage? You would still have to build the same footings to handle the weight and now you're adding the cost of land acquisition and demolition, possible asbestos and lead abatement and the logistics of re platting and rerouting existing residential streets. It just doesn't make sense.
I've seen the engineering studies and as an engineer myself I think I can speak with some authority on this. Vote against light rail if you want, but do so based on facts, not scare tactics.
Vote against light rail if you want, but do so based on facts, not scare tactics.
Can you give us any facts to voter FOR light rail?
From my point of view, all I see is a bunch of unanswered questions.
Even you have really put forth reasons to vote for it, besides short term job creation. Maybe in bad economic times, that only is good enough of a reason.
So can you lay a few pro-rail facts on me?
Mark, I am no engineer, but I do have enough training to know that "supporting the weight" of light rail is not the issue. I just assume that at $100 million a mile, there's going to be a lot of concrete poured.
The question about whether or not the Main and Broadway right-of-ways can "support" light rail, I believe, refers to how much space in the ROW that the trains will take up and how much that will negatively impact automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Whether or not the specific studies I referred to earlier are true, I do have questions about how these streets are going to work with the rail. Daytime traffic on both Main and Broadway is bad enough as it is.
You know me, you know where I live, where I work, and where I drink. Any light rail plan is going to wipe out one or more of the three. Therefore, until the political power that controls this city can convince me completely of the merits of this so that I can rationally choose public good over personal, I vote no.
How about a running list of viable businesses that will be put in immediate danger? I'll start:
1. Davey's Uptown Ramblers Club
2. Thriftway on Main and 40th St.
3. Wild Oats on 43rd and Main
4. Broadway Cafe
5. The Blarney Stone
6. Office Max
7. Office Depot
8. Home Depot
9. Gates on Main
10. Hereford House (ha!)
Oops, I wrote the above comment, for what it's worth.
And let me add, Mark, your house I bet, is perfectly safe, being located so close to a boulevard, huh?
1. Is it expected to have higher ridership? (any thing to back that up either way)
In every case where light rail has been implemented in North America the ridership has increased over the existing bus lines. Light rail attracts "new" riders who have emotional objections to riding the bus.
2. Will it cost less in yearly maintainence?
This depends on how you look at it. Light rail maintenance costs include the road bed (tracks) and catenary. If the costs of maintaining the sidewalks, streetlights and roads on which buses run were included in maintenance costs, the figures would become more equitable.
Also keep in mind light rail carries more passengers per vehicle than buses, so you also need to factor in maintenance cost per year per rider.
3. Will it be faster than the current bus on the same route?
Yes. Critics argue the average speed of light rail is generally less which is deceiving. Light rail enjoys dedicated lanes and signal priority which buses do not. Factor that in and you'll find that a trip down Main from Crown Center to the Plaza would be quicker on rail than bus. Also don't underestimate the "on schedule" advantage that rail enjoys over bus.
4. What is the expected economic benefit?
Nobody can quantify this. However you need only look at comparable cities and systems like Dallas to see there is a net positive economic gain from implementing light rail.
5. What will happen if federal funding does not come through?
We build less and operate less until an alternate funding strategy can be found.
"You know me, you know where I live, where I work, and where I drink."
All three are the same place, no? ;-)
"Any light rail plan is going to wipe out one or more of the three. Therefore, until the political power that controls this city can convince me completely of the merits of this so that I can rationally choose public good over personal, I vote no."
I can't really dispute that Alan. As you know, my faith in the current leadership at City Hall is non-existent. I'm counting on a better group of leaders being in office by the time light rail becomes a reality.
Thanks for your answers Mark. I got a good morning laugh at who have emotional objections to riding the bus.
"I got a good morning laugh at who have emotional objections to riding the bus."
I agree that it is laughable but it is also a fact. Never underestimate the irrationality of human beings. We can either choose to ignore behaviors which we consider to be irrational or accept them as a fact of life and make accommodations accordingly.
We do it all the time in other areas and don't even question it. People won't buy slacks made by Levi's but they'll happily shell out $75 for a pair of Dockers. Nobody wants a luxury car with a Toyota name plate on it but call it a Lexus and you can almost name your price. Garbanzo beans cost more than chick peas. Take an express bus and call it "The MAX" and suddenly it's BRT and new riders will (and have) get on board.
One of the great marketing articles called "Marketing Myopia" contends that you can't educate the consumer. The more prudent path is to figure out what the consumer thinks he wants and give it to him. A significant segment of commuters don't want buses. They want light rail. We can either fault them for their irrationality and let them stay in their individual vehicles or we can figure out a way to bring them into the transit fold.
2. Will it cost less in yearly maintainence?
Light rail foes also like to leave out the decreased cost of road maintenance from fewer cars on the road, reducing the need for more parking to be built and the enormous costs of all the new road construction going on over the last 10 years that could have paid for a regional light rail system by now. That's neither here nor there at this point but you gotta start somewhere to get us back to our 1940s public transit grandeur.
And also Joe - try GOOGLE. The pros and cons of a lightrail system have been well documented. Or maybe even reading some of Mark's other posts...
Alan,
I found a good article that addresses your capacity concerns.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt010.htm
REBUTTS IN CAPS BELOW:
1. Is it expected to have higher ridership? (any thing to back that up either way)
In every case where light rail has been implemented in North America the ridership has increased over the existing bus lines. Light rail attracts "new" riders who have emotional objections to riding the bus.
--->CHECK OUT THE NEW MAX BUSSES<---
2. Will it cost less in yearly maintainence?
This depends on how you look at it. Light rail maintenance costs include the road bed (tracks) and catenary. If the costs of maintaining the sidewalks, streetlights and roads on which buses run were included in maintenance costs, the figures would become more equitable.
Also keep in mind light rail carries more passengers per vehicle than buses, so you also need to factor in maintenance cost per year per rider.
--->CHECK OUT THE MAX BUSSES<---
3. Will it be faster than the current bus on the same route?
Yes. Critics argue the average speed of light rail is generally less which is deceiving. Light rail enjoys dedicated lanes and signal priority which buses do not. Factor that in and you'll find that a trip down Main from Crown Center to the Plaza would be quicker on rail than bus. Also don't underestimate the "on schedule" advantage that rail enjoys over bus.
--->SAME AS THE MAX BUSSES<---
4. What is the expected economic benefit?
Nobody can quantify this. However you need only look at comparable cities and systems like Dallas to see there is a net positive economic gain from implementing light rail.
--->NOBODY CAN QUANTIFY, SO MY NUMBERS ARE AS GOOD AS YOURS<---
5. What will happen if federal funding does not come through?
We build less and operate less until an alternate funding strategy can be found.
--->LESS THAN THE PLANNED 14 MILES? SO WHAT, TEAR UP MAIN OR BROADWAY FROM 47TH TO 31ST AND CALL IT GOOD?<---
michelled, there aren't going to be any fewer cars on the road with this system!
How many people are going to be able to sell one or more of their cars when light rail is in place?
Nobody north of the river, because that terminus is nowhere near any housing density.
How many people live along the Broadway / Main corridor and work downtown along Main / Oak / Grand? That's who can get rid of their cars. Everyone else will be driving.
Somebody ought to look at traffic studies of how light rail as planned is going to accomodate parking for increased "park-and-ride". Where the hell are they going to park cars at any of the midtown stops?
Mark, thanks for the link to the lightrailnow.org article. No doubt their assumptions are biased, but whatever. I like how the quaint little pictures shown are of small cute little streetcars and not the huge 90' long trains that KCMO proposes.
Then, whoever is talking about less maintenance required for light rail: HOW MUCH LESS? Is it zero maintenance? Because that's about all the city of KCMO is good for. Do we REALLY want to give $1,000,000,000 to a legislative body whose biggest accomplishment in two years is to remove the mayor and his betrothed from city hall? What about curbs and sidewalks and streetlights like we were promised? I'd say if the city can't get a plate of a street, how stupid does one need to be to trust them to correctly implement regional transit?
Until we know how much the Power and LIght District is going to cost us from general revenues and until we know the funding mechanisms for the sewer upgrades it's imperative that we add no new taxes
The basic con on light rail.
And you can go to your excel and check the numbers
Ridership right now on that route is around 500,000 a year.
The annual payment on 1 billion dollars worth of 30 year bonds at 5% is around 65 million dollars. That is $130.00 in cost to the tax payer everytime someone steps on the train. Even if you increased thye rideship 5 fold (an outstanding success by anyones measure) we are still paying $26 per ride.
Ridership right now on that route is around 500,000 a year.
The annual payment on 1 billion dollars worth of 30 year bonds at 5% is around 65 million dollars. That is $130.00 in cost to the tax payer everytime someone steps on the train. Even if you increased thye rideship 5 fold (an outstanding success by anyones measure) we are still paying $26 per ride.
Ok, the above makes it sound like a very bad deal. Anyone find a problem with the above statement?
who have emotional objections to riding the bus.
Are those the hipsters from Brookside and the Crossroads?
Mark,
Do you consider Funk violating state laws in his support of light rail just a "technicality."
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15273
Too often the city council evokes the "emergency" charter provision. There was no emergency with the light rail issue, except to move quickly to keep the lack of details from becoming a public concern.
This Light Rail is not about transportation it is about development. It makes TIF subsidies look like childs play.
The Sensible Transit folks are right about one thing, there are too many unanswered questions. The responsible thing is to vote no. Then maybe the council will turn back to doing real transit planning. Light rail or street cars may well be a part of a real plan. Lets do real planning.
It Lost. I guess the Committee for Sensible Transit will now get the emergency clause ruling and still gloat about their win. Lawsuits convince a lot of people to vote NO it seems.