The Kansas City Post

Downtown Convention Hotel: Not Now, Not With Our Money

2009-06-23T09:00:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Build it and they will come. Makes for a catchy baseball movie theme but lousy economic development policy. The Sprint Center sits as a shining example of how not to go about public-private partnered development. Not only has the Sprint Center not attracted a premium tenant, it has essentially killed the Kemper Arena in the process. It's called "market dilution" and this market can only support one arena. Then there's the Power & Light District. It's not even necessary to describe the failure that has been.

How is it that with such monumental failures visible from their office windows, that the City Council can be considering using public dollars to help finance a 1000 room hotel? Yes, yes, I know. It's the "increment" in TIF and it's the increment of the appraised property tax abatement in a 353 plan, etc, etc... What it is, is more downtown real estate that will never grace the tax rolls because by the time a standard 20 year abatement ends, the property will be in need of renovation, and you guessed it, even more public funding.

Fortunately, not even some embarrassing cheerleading in the Kansas City Star can spur this City Council into action. The Council's love of useless committees is just too strong, and its desire to blow an additional half a million dollars on consultants too much. As someone who has in the past been a strong advocate for downtown development, this is difficult to write, but Kansas City taxpayers cannot afford to get into the convention hotel business. The Star's cheer leading aside, it just doesn't make good financial sense. If it does, then I want someone to show me.

Show me exactly which conventions Kansas City is losing due to lack of hotel space. Name them. Show us letters of intent guaranteeing a multi-year commitment from tangible groups if we build this hotel.

Show me you can fill the hotel rooms we already have. Conventions come in all shapes and sizes. Fill downtown 52 weeks a year with groups that bump up against our current capacity. This talk about the arbitrary 1000 room threshold that convention planners look for is just that; arbitrary.

Show me you can overwhelm our downtown transit capacity. Fill the buses and the new shuttles (no I won't call them trolleys) and occupy all the taxi cabs. Populate the sidewalks with lanyard wearing conventioneers searching for bars and restaurants.

Show me the numbers! A savvy investor always buys into a rally and sells out of a decline. Show me the increasing revenues from a growing convention trade and convince me I'm buying into a growth industry. Because the reality is what we're really doing is assuming a larger equity stake in a shrinking market. The convention business is dialing back, and not just because of the economy.

Show me the money! If a new convention hotel is such a good investment, convince the private sector. For that matter, the private sector should not need "convincing" at all. If the numbers work, private investment will come. If private investors are putting their funds elsewhere, why should we as taxpayers do the exact opposite? Does the city council know something the entire private equity market does not? Answer: That's a big "no". This is the committee forming, consultant hiring, resolution making bunch, remember?

A 1000 room hotel is not going to bring high-paying jobs and consequently is not going to generate its fair share of e-tax. A 1000 room hotel is not going to draw conventions, what group thinks about the hotel when they're choosing a site for their gathering? A 1000 room hotel is not going to make up the shortfall of the Power & Light District bonds. So what is it going to do? Add a few bucks to some council re-election campaigns and plunge the city even further into debt. I say "no thanks".

Sidewalks Aren't Free

2009-06-17T09:30:00.001-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Recently a Resolution was forwarded out of committee for the full council's consideration. Considering "Resolutions" are only useful if they're printed out and the backs can be used as scratch paper, I normally don't pay much attention to them. But this particular resolution caught my eye because it deals with sidewalks. Curbs and sidewalks are probably the most misunderstood pieces of infrastructure in all of Kansas City. Witness every four years when council (and even mayoral) candidates stand up at forums promising to "fix the curbs and sidewalks" some even going so far as to imply that they "will find the money" (another one of my favorite expressions).

Promising voters that you will fix the sidewalks is misleading at best. It implies to the voters that you the candidate will somehow beautify long neglected streets with brand new curbing and billiard table smooth sidewalks. There's only one problem. As these less than knowledgeable candidates soon find out after they're elected, the curbs and sidewalks abutting a property are the fiscal responsibility of the property owner. Yep. That's right. You pay for the maintenance, upkeep and eventual replacement of the curbs and sidewalks in front of your house. Twice the price if you live on a corner!

So I was hopeful when the following post flashed across my news aggregator. Curb & Sidewalk Policy Perhaps our elected officials had finally decided to tackle the tough and unpopular topic in such a way that would bring many neighborhoods back into walkable form. But I was wrong. In true Resolution form, the document simply parrots a suggested sidewalk policy authored by City staff and directs the City Manager to develop a policy. The highlights are listed as follows:

All curbs and sidewalks are to be brought to acceptable standards city-wide within 25 years.

25 YEARS?! My neighborhood's sidewalks were completely replaced in 1985 but thanks to the pushing and heaving from our lovely Sweetgum trees, many are already in need of being redone. Why not set an aggressive goal of 10 years and actually put some people to work? Creating jobs? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? One guy with a wheelbarrow and a trowel could probably do them all in 25 years... Not only should they all be brought up to code quickly, there should be an ordinance that no curb or sidewalk should be allowed to remain in a state of disrepair for longer than two years.

The financial impact to residential property owners shall be kept to reasonable minimums.

That's a nice vague statement. Concrete ain't cheap. The T&I Committee members could have done a little research (it's called "G O O G L E") and found some very innovative financing plans implemented by other municipalities that are both fair and practical.

Environmentally-friendly and low-maintenance materials and construction methods are to be used where possible.

At least they didn't say "Green".

And what about the sections of town that do not have curbs and sidewalks at all? Even in some of the most wealthy neighborhoods in the 4th District there are entire sections of sidewalk that are missing, having been removed by homeowners years ago. Will they be replaced in this "plan"?

It takes more than a resolution to get things done. The council is supposed to bring diverse backgrounds and experiences to the area of problem solving. If we can't expect them to tackle basic infrastructure issues with nothing more than a general Resolution, we're all in trouble.

Our Insular Leadership

2009-06-09T07:30:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Years ago while serving on an advisory committee at City Hall I found myself interacting with many levels of our government bureaucracy. Our committee charter was to analyze different department procedures, and help them formulate a pseudo-business plan to make them more competitive. It was a fantastic lesson in the inner workings of day to day life of the people who literally keep the wheels turning.

I saw firsthand the frustration of City workers who felt alienated from the City Council having never so much as seen an elected official in their department, let alone asking questions or even bothering to introduce themselves. I was stunned that the majority opinion of the rank and file is that the City Council resides in an ivory tower, dispensing not only budget dollars, but policy decisions affecting functions which the council knows very little about.

Watching a recent business session on Channel 2, I was reminded that while the names and faces have changed, the relationship between our elected leadership and the rank and file at City Hall has not. Still insular, still ignorant of those pesky details about how basic city services are delivered. The council was reviewing the results of an internal audit questioning City employees about their opinions on council performance. The results were bleak. Even more bothersome was instead of taking the results to heart and vowing to dramatically improve the numbers, the mayor and council members took turns lamenting that the results must somehow be skewed. "They can't be talking about me because I do this or I did that so they must be referring to someone else."

Government is no different than business. How can you run an enterprise without being completely familiar with its inner workings? Relying on 10 minute PowerPoint presentations sanitized and dumbed down for its audience is not the route to success. Perhaps if the council spent less time grandstanding over dress codes and more time learning the business they are supposed to be running, they might actually see those survey results improve.

I'm still here...

2009-06-05T08:35:00.003-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Apathy. Boredom. Being busy with my day job (thank goodness!). I haven't had the motivation to write much as of late. By doing so I have ignored my own blogging credo; "Write every day". Someone from the "mainstream media" asked me once how I managed to come up with posts. I told her you have to write something, anything every day regardless of whether it makes it out of your draft folder. Like any other skill, if you don't practice you get rusty.

Last night I had the good fortune to attend an event at the Kansas City Downtown Library featuring Nick Haines of KCPT moderating a discussion about newspapers and their predicament of becoming more and more irrelevant in today's fast-paced world of immediate news flashing across your computer screen or smart phone. It was a lively discussion mostly dominated by Tony Botello of tonyskansascity.com and Dave Helling from the Kansas City Star. To me the general theme of the evening was mainstream media lamenting that fewer and fewer people subscribe to news printed on paper anymore and somehow it's the fault of the internet, bloggers, and these darn kids who just don't appreciate professional journalism. That may be true. But to use a phrase I've grown tired of hearing, "It is what it is". Newspaper publishers can cry foul and point fingers all they want, but it's not going to increase their subscription numbers.

Two things stood out for me during the evening. One was Tony Botello calling me out by name from the stage. That is the primary reason I am typing this post. It was the kick in the pants I needed to get back in the saddle. The other was Dave Helling lamenting that if the Kansas City Star became a non-profit entity, they would no longer be able to endorse political candidates. I wish I had the exact quote, but Dave basically implied that if the Star didn't endorse candidates, people would have to go out on their own to inform themselves in order to make educated choices at the polls. And that's a bad thing in what way? The irony of implying that the downfall of news print equates to the weakening of our democracy, and then asserting that a news organization needs the ability to influence peoples' choices about candidates was not lost on me. Particularly because I have firsthand knowledge of how the Star editorial board makes their endorsements.

So hopefully next week I'll have something of substance to write instead of my rambling thoughts about a TV panel discussion. But just ignore it. If it's not printed on paper by someone getting paid to write it, you can't trust it. And so it goes...

False Alarms: Abusers Should Pay Their Fair Share

2009-05-14T07:30:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Every day in Kansas City the police have to respond to automatic alarm alerts. The majority of those calls turn out to be false alarms. How much of a majority? Try 97%. Factor that number into the actual amount of alarm calls received in a year (20,000!) and you're looking at 55 times a day that at least one officer is dispatched when there is no crime in progress. Twice an hour the police end up wasting valuable time. With the current budget cuts that wasted time becomes even more valuable.

Since I'm a numbers kind of guy, I dug a little deeper. I wondered if the KCPD kept cost estimates on how much it costs to dispatch an officer to investigate an alarm. Turns out they do. According to Community Interaction Officer John Trainor, it costs about $42.50 per alarm response. That's an average taking into account that during the day one officer responds on an alarm, unless a second is needed or requested. In the evening, after dark, two officers are dispatched. That's 20,000 x $42.50 = $850,000 in wasted time and tax dollars. As you can see, when a door blows open here, or a cat sets off a motion sensor there, pretty soon you're talking real money. And that number changes from year to year. For example, in 1997 the number of false alarms was 60,000. Next year who knows?

Part of this cost is offset by alarm permits. The police do not respond unless the alarm is registered. Residents and businesses pay a one-time permit fee to register their alarm with the KCPD. Recently the Board of Police Commissioners approved a fee increase for these alarm renewals from $35 per alarm to $40 per alarm beginning May 1, 2009. So here's the breakdown.

New residential and business permits $45 – one-time fee, are not transferable from address to address or from person to person

Master Permit for apartments (6 or more units) $45

Annual Renewal Fee – Resident $ 0 (two or less false alarms per permit year, $40 per false alarm above two not to exceed $120 total)

Annual Renewal Fee – Business $40 (per false alarm, no maximum)

So the offenders aren't fined as the offenses occur. Their renewal fee goes up for the next year. So theoretically if a business racked up a few thousand dollars in false alarms, it could just choose not to register for the next year and not pay, leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill. The same goes for residents, although their fee is capped at $120. So a private residence can have an alarm go off once an hour for the whole year and never pay more than $120. Doesn't that sound a little off?

Kansas City does have an alarm ordinance, Chapter 50 - Article X for those scoring at home, but it doesn't have any teeth. It gives the Board of Police Commissioners the power to set the initial alarm registration fee, and sets protections for citizens with disabilities or financial restraints, but it does nothing to fine those who use a disproportionate amount of police resources. A quick Google search on false alarm ordinances reveals that a lot of communities have the same statistics, but are much more aggressive in recovering the costs. There are ordinances that not only fine the offender as the false alarms occur, but have a graduated scale, in some cases fining as much as $500 per occurrence after multiple offenses. This seems only fair. Why should the rest of us pay for a small minority of people who can't figure out how to run an alarm system?

Perhaps the council would have been made aware of all this if its one representative on the Board of Police Commissioners, the mayor had been present at the April 28th meeting where all this was discussed. Perhaps they would be discussing a simple ordinance change that would alleviate some financial burden on the KCPD and put it squarely on the people unnecessarily using extra police resources. They might be, if the mayor hadn't missed the meeting (one of many he's missed) because he was off sulking in Nebraska while claiming "his vote didn't count".

A Midwesterner’s observations on “San Francisco values”

2009-05-07T08:23:00.003-05:00

By Kevin Klinkenberg
The Kansas City Post

We’ve had some elections around here recently, and even more nationally where people like to express their distaste for “San Francisco values”. God forbid, they suggest, that we allow our area/city to become like San Francisco – it’s such an un-American place, representative of what some groups think of as all that’s wrong in the U.S.

Well, allow me as simply one person to differ with that viewpoint. I’ve had the good fortune that my work has taken me to the Bay Area a number of times (including last week), and I’ve also had a couple of short vacations there. Each time I’m there, it amazes me as to how this particular place has become demonized in so much of the national culture.

Sure, the housing prices are high, and the traffic is congested. And yes, sometimes the constant drumbeat of everything “green” can get to be a little much.

But let’s consider a few things objectively about what the Bay Area and San Francisco has: a dynamic and vibrant urban core; excellent mass transit options in the City and suburbs; two of the best universities in the world; arguably the most entrepreneurial sector in the world; astounding natural beauty that has been lovingly preserved; a temperate climate that supports great agriculture (including some of the best wine in the world) as well as being comfortable to live in.

Is it any wonder why so many people want to live in the Bay Area? Today, it swells with over 7 million people, and continues to attract more daily. It fascinates me how critics of high housing costs in the Bay Area seem to always miss this basic fact of supply of demand. Of course it’s expensive to live there – more people want to be there than can be accommodated in a quick/easy/cheap fashion. Is it somehow a problem that Bay Area residents want to protect the natural beauty that is a prime reason for its attractiveness? If we lived there, we’d say – duh, no.

So, call me crazy, but if “San Francisco values” means a vibrant city, dynamic economy, excellent transit, world-class universities, a beautiful natural environment and a general “live and let live” attitude toward life than please count me in. Why wouldn’t we want that here in KC or anywhere for that matter?

But then, I’m not naive. I recognize that “San Francisco values” is code for “they have lots of gay people” and that somehow we should be scared. After all – if we live that way we might just all turn gay! Our kids might all turn gay! The horror!

Fear is no doubt a powerful emotion, and political consultants have used it to great effect over the last couple of decades. And, it still works. But if we look beyond the tactics and to the actual truth, we might learn something. In this case, we might learn that a place like the Bay Area actually holds many clues as to what it takes to be a competitive, successful region in the 21st century.

Funkhouser: This Recall Looks Real

2009-05-06T10:00:00.001-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

"It's political." That was the accusation former councilman George Blackwood made about the Funkhouser Recall movement on Steve Kraske's "Up To Date" program on KCUR yesterday. Of course it's political. By definition the recall of an elected official is always "political". Aside from Steve Kraske's usual lack of followup on tough questions and letting both sides meander into answers that had nothing to do with the question, the only thing I garnered from the show was that the leadership of the recall is a ragtag group of disillusioned former Funkhouser supporters and George Blackwood wants desperately to keep his international trade connections intact. There really wasn't any new information.

I think the deciding factor for me was when Kraske asked George Blackwood, aside from himself, who are the community leaders, the big names if you will, coming out in opposition to the recall. Mr. Blackwood regressed into a story about attending law school "a hundred years ago" and his nostalgia for some obscure legal filing that made sense before the advent of electricity. So I was left to infer from Blackwood's evasiveness that he is the only "name" coming out in full support of the Mayor. Kraske, as usual, did not press for an answer to his question.

Later that afternoon, I finally saw a recall petitioner outside the Brookside Market after Kraske’s show aired. He was wearing a bright yellow "Recall Mayor Funkhouser" t-shirt leaving now doubt as to what you were being asked to sign. Contrary to some reports about uninformed or possibly paid petition gatherers, this man identified himself as a former Funkhouser supporter. He seemed genuinely saddened that he, like myself had no idea the utter lack of disrespect Funkhouser seems to have for our city. So I signed the petition, we exchanged pleasantries, shared our mutual sorrow at the complete failure of the public trust originating from the 29th floor of City Hall (or more accurately from West 57th Terrace) and then parted ways.

From my brief encounter I am starting to believe that the recall is very real and very possible. Rather than dismissing the same "regular folks" that Mark Funkhouser likes to evoke, perhaps he should begin to take this movement very seriously. It seems the "regular folks" are the ones holding the clipboards. We may very well be voting for mayor this summer. Start researching your candidates now.

Petition Initiatives Must Be Feasible

2009-04-29T07:00:00.000-05:00

Recently a story was run by the Kansas City Star reporting that our Virginia based annoyance will once again return to Kansas City with a new petition drive for light rail, gondolas and electric buses. Why does the Star continue to give this person publicity?

I haven't seen the "budget" that was supposedly presented to the media, but I don't need to. I already know that light rail costs costs in excess of $50 million per mile. I know the proposed route from Swope Park to Union Station will not meet the FTA standards for rider density to obtain matching funds. I don't know much about gondolas but I can compare a Union Station to Liberty Memorial span to a similar project in Portland, OR. I do happen to know quite a bit about electric buses. The battery technology has not advanced enough to start running KCATA routes. At least not in a cost-effective manner. Give me $1 billion for just the electric bus project and I could probably make that happen within 2 years. But $780 million for the entire system? I have to use a word I absolutely loathe; impossible. More like $1 billion for EV bus development, $600 million for 10 miles of light rail, and close to $100 million for gondolas. Throw in operating costs and maintenance and a quick back of the napkin calculation has us looking at about $2 billion with no help from the feds. You can't get there with a 3/8 cent sales tax.

Kansas City can no longer afford the financial burden that Quixotic ballot initiatives put on the taxpayers. We have to change our charter to protect ourselves, and we have to change it quickly. But in what ways?

First off, it has been brought up before and shot down, but I still support a clause that says you must be a resident of Kansas City in order to gather signatures. In fact, I think you should also have to be a registered voter. You have to be a citizen to vote on the initiative, why should the qualifications to create it be any different? Our current Virginian antagonist aside, what if an out-of-town interest group decided to use misleading information to place a ballot initiative that lures Kansas City voters to pass a damaging law? It seems doubtful that anyone would intentionally try to damage Kansas City, but we've already seen what an initiative conceived out of ignorance and plain stupidity can do.

Second, any citizen ballot initiative must be accompanied by a feasibility study. It shouldn't fall to the taxpayers to determine if we can provide every citizen of Kansas City a free unicorn without a tax increase. Any plan put before the voters must have detailed financials down to the last penny. Sound tough? You bet it would be. But coming up with a transit plan that will affect our city for the next 50 years is difficult. We shouldn't allow it to be architected by one self-promoting individual.

Finally, the amount of signatures required needs to be raised and the time allotted to get them must be shortened. When one man with a clipboard, no self-respect, misleading foam board displays and too much time on his hands can put a ballot initiative before the voters, we have a problem. At the minimum, the bar should be raised to a threshold similar to the one required to bring our current mayor to a recall election.

If "anything" positive has come out of the last light rail initiative it's the discovery that we have a flaw in our charter that allows one out-of-state person to waste hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars. It was a costly lesson, but we cannot fail to learn from it.

Cultural Transformation (Part 6 of 6): What's Next

2009-04-27T06:56:00.001-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

Transforming the KCMSD into a district that works to provide educational achievement for all scholars isn't a fantasy that well wishing and positive thinking will make appear. But it is a reality that we have the collective power to create. To unleash that potency, we must first be aware of the current results and acknowledge our role in their creation: 1 in 4 KCMSD scholars is literate and numerate at grade level and we are responsible for having created that. Only when we fully own where we are (the current conversation & current results) can we then create where we want to be (the new conversation & new results).

As we accept responsibility for our district, the new conversation grows. Our scholar engagement, community engagement, faculty & administration, and governance cultures transform -- and along with them, new possibilities for each of our scholars emerge. Across the district, classroom by classroom, neighborhood meeting by neighborhood meeting, board meeting by board meeting, we hear the new conversation's urgent whisperings. As it grows louder, we see clearly "what's working", "what's not working/what's next" and hear the cultural transformation inherent in each.

You now have a choice: contribute to the dominant conversation by doing what you're already doing and, in so doing, ensure that we continue to create more of what we already have. Or commit to the creation of the new conversation -- the only path that leads to the transformation of our schools, our community and our region.

Cultural Transformation (Part 5 of 6): Governance

2009-04-22T07:00:00.000-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

Finally, in the meetings and discussions of the school board, there are two competing conversations: "I am not to blame for what is not working in the district" and "We are fully responsible for everything that is working and not working in our district." One of these conversations inspires a sense of accountability for each and every one of our scholars and the other does not. One works to create a culture that is scholar-centered, achievement-focused, research-based and accountability-empowered and the other does not. These conversations reveal themselves in both the speaking and the actions of school board members. If we want something other than what we have now, we must begin to transform both.

One question, when explored without offering justifications or becoming defensive, that can begin to transform the conversation: to what extent do I see myself as the cause of the problem I'm committed to fixing? And after that: what promises am I willing to make to my peers? These questions, when pursued with the affirmation of their intent rather than the condemnation with which they can be interpreted, empower us to create the transformation we seek.

Cultural Transformation (Part 4 of 6): Faculty & Administration

2009-04-17T08:53:00.002-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

Within the faculty and administration discussions concerning the school district, there are two competing conversations: "I will teach those students that want to learn" and "We are responsible for the educational achievement of all of our scholars." One of these conversations generates a culture where anything is possible for our scholars and the other does not. One works to create a culture that is scholar-centered, achievement-focused, research-based and accountability-empowered and the other does not. These conversations reveal themselves in both the speaking and the actions of our faculty and administration. If we want something other than what we have now, we must begin to transform both.

One question, when explored without offering justifications or becoming defensive, that can begin to transform the conversation: how do I benefit from the KCMSD being the way it is now? And after that: what assumptions would I have to let go to create the learning environment my scholars need? These questions, when pursued as an access to opportunity rather than as an indictment of the past, create new openings for action and inspire us towards the transformation we seek.

Cultural Transformation (Part 3 of 6): Community Engagement

2009-04-16T07:00:00.001-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

Embedded in the community conversation about our school district, you can hear two competing conversations: "I see no hope for that district" and "We believe in what is possible for our district's scholars and we will act on that belief." One of these conversations leads to a culture of excellence for our scholars and one does not. One works to create a culture that is scholar-centered, achievement-focused, research-based and accountability-empowered and the other does not. These conversations reveal themselves in both the speaking and the actions of our community -- at work, at church, in our neighborhoods and in our homes. If we want something other than what we have now, we must begin to transform both.

One question, when explored without offering justifications or becoming defensive, can begin to transform the conversation: how have I contributed to us having the KCMSD we have now? And after that: what gifts do I have that I have not been using to support the scholars of the KCMSD? These questions, when seen through the spirit of restoration with which they're shared (rather than a spirit of retribution), empower us to assume ownership of our school district rather than endure the experience of being a victim of it.

One movement that seeks to inspire these very questions is rapidly gaining speed: BE 1!

Leave it to Cleaver: Raul Castro is "Amazing"!

2009-04-14T07:00:00.002-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

I try to keep the topics on The Kansas City Post specific to local issues. Normally a subject like the U.S. embargo on Cuba would not fall into that realm. But a recent visit to Havana by our U.S. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II and some unfortunate quotes attributed to him have brought the international debate home to Kansas City. Like it or not, when our Congressman describes a dictator with a documented history of civil rights abuse as "one of the most amazing human beings I’ve ever met" we must take pause and examine if we agree with his assessment, or condemn it and demand a retraction. Of course a master spin doctor could put a lot into the word "amazing". I myself have predicated many an insulting adjective with the word "amazing".

Like most Americans of my generation my impressions of Cuba were shaped by my parents' and teachers' recounting of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs Invasion and pop culture references to "Che" Guevara. Those impressions for me were reshaped by the 1999 film "The Buena Vista Social Club" which exposed me to a side of Cuba I had not seen. Through the music and stories of men like Rubén González and Compay Segundo, I saw a Cuba where people do not have the time or inclination to either hate America or envy our form of government. I did not see a Cuba where people possibly dreamed of overthrowing a dictator. Frankly, they seemed occupied with their daily struggle to survive under poverty and isolation.

The visit to Cuba by a seven member delegation of the Black Congressional Caucus has once again brought the topic of the U.S. embargo to the front pages of newspapers. Passions run high on both sides. There are some, myself included who feel that the U.S. embargo has done nothing to encourage democracy in Cuba. It certainly hasn't punished the Castros. They're doing fine. They have lived long lives of comfort and privilege. What the embargo has done, in my opinion is punish the Cuban people who have no quarrel with the United States. On the other side of the argument are people who say the embargo must not be lifted. They feel engaging in trade with Cuba will only further enrich and ensconce the Castro regime. To them I say, it's been fifty years. I think the Castros can't get much more enriched or ensconced.

I thought Cleaver's complimentary comments about Castro were unfortunate and disrespectful to all Cubans who have suffered under the Castro regime. I also believe however, that we can open relations with Cuba without endorsing its leadership. An embargo that helps impoverish the Cuban people while their dictators luxuriate in wealth and comfort doesn't seem like good policy to me. I just hope our representatives will scale back on the gushing rhetoric about the Castros.

Cultural Transformation (Part 2 of 6): Scholar Engagement

2009-04-13T06:55:00.000-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

National research describing what is required to bridge significant gaps that exist between subgroups of scholars point to similar conclusion with a key one being this: scholar engagement. Without a highly motivated learner, the entire process of education begins to breakdown. Our entire system of education must be transformed such that the lust for education inherent in all children is nurtured and encouraged. Scholars must tap into their motivation to engage and own their educational experience -- and as the adults in the system, we must reorganize our system of education to accommodate this need. The need for scholars to be highly engaged, highly motivated learners underscores the first of four cultural transformations necessary to turnaround our district. The culture of scholar engagement must transform from "I am not responsible for what happens in this building" to "We are engaged in this school and it is engaged in us." One group that has taken ownership of this transformation is the recently formed KCMSD Student Government. Honor their ownership in this way: when they call you, answer the call.

We must always remember that whatever cultural norms our scholars have, they inherited from us. They are not the cause of what's not working in this district. We are. So whether or not our scholars create this cultural vision as their guide, all adults that live, work, worship or play within the boundaries of the KCMSD must create cultural transformations of our own.

Cultural Transformation (part 1 of 6): The Conversation

2009-04-10T07:05:00.002-05:00

By Airick Leonard West
The Kansas City Post

Listening to our scholars, our teachers, administrators, parents, union members, neighborhood leaders, community residents, businesswomen and men, civic leaders, titans of industry and more, you can hear the same thing: the precursors to wholesale cultural transformation. The cultural norms surrounding this district must be transformed for this district to become a district that works to provide educational achievement for all scholars. That transformation is coming in four key sectors: scholar engagement, community engagement, faculty & administration, and governance. When the conversations guiding these four areas are transformed, we will be a district and a community that consistently provides our scholars with all that they deserve. As our school district returns to workability, so too will our local and regional economy. The fates of our communities and our entire region are inextricably interwoven with the fate of our district. We can choose to restore both.

To understand the culture of an institution, you need to listen for the conversations that describe it. As we transform the conversations, the behaviors and actions of the people within the district will be transformed as well. Over the next four posts, I'll share the conversations that can be heard surrounding scholar engagement, community engagement (our families, neighborhoods and civic leaders), administration & faculty (our curricular and instructional leaders) and governance (our elected board of education leaders that serve as the connectors between community engagement and faculty & administration). In the final post, I'll begin to discuss what's next for us as a community if our choice is to create a school district that works for all scholars.

New Industry for KC: Next Up? Electric Buses

2009-04-08T07:00:00.002-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Back when I first read about Smith Electric Vehicles potentially coming to the United States, I began researching its parent company, The Tanfield Group. Based in England the Tanfield Group is the parent company of Smith Electric Vehicles who just announced their plant location in Kansas City. Its Chairman, Roy Stanley was probably the most responsive and courteous contact I made out of many attempts at finding out more about the company.

After attending the Smith EV news conference and crawling around the stripped down Newton talking kilowatts and torque with battery supplier Kokam America Inc. founder Don Nissanka, I began to wonder if that same platform could be used for a bus. Returning from an out of town weekend trip I decided to email Mr. Stanley and thank him and his group for choosing Kansas City as the site for their American version of Smith Electric Vehicles. I also intended to ask him about my bus idea. As I typed out an email, imagine my surprise as a press release flashed across my news reader announcing that British bus builder Optare had successfully demonstrated a new electric bus called the Solo EV. ~~Like Smith EV, Optare is a subsidiary of the Tanfield Group.~~ Correction: Optare is a completely separate company from the Tanfield Group. The connection is that Roy Stanley is a Director for both companies.

The Solo EV may not quite be ready to start running the 39 or the 25 routes for the KCATA just yet. Due to current battery technology, it has a limited range (~ 60 miles) and not so attractive charge times (~8 hours). However it would be nicely suited for shuttle bus work at an airport or short feeder routes throughout any metropolitan area. And with battery technology advancing at similar rates to computer processor speeds in the 1990's, it's not a stretch to envision retrofitting these buses in the very near future with better batteries to enable them to perform equivalent to a diesel-powered vehicle.

I asked Mr. Stanley about the possibilities for a US subsidiary of Optare and the logistical sense it might make to also be located geographically near Lee's Summit battery manufacturer Kokam. As usual, Mr. Stanley's reply was prompt and he said among other things he "hopes to see the Solo EV manufactured in the United States". He mentioned "Kansas" but I hope he meant "Kansas City". We've already attracted one British EV endeavor (or perhaps I should spell it endeavour) to Kansas City. Here's hoping for a second.

MO Pub Service Commissioner "Doesn't See It"

2009-04-06T08:15:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

I was disappointed after reading Kevin Gunn's "As I See It" column in The Kansas City Star. See We Should Seek New Ways Of Making Power. Mr. Gunn identifies himself as a Commissioner with the Missouri Public Service Commission which regulates investor-owned utilities. So of course I read with great interest and dare I say "hope" that someone in the position of regulating our utilities understands how rapidly advancing power generating technology has made nuclear power unnecessary and coal burning power plants (IE: Digging rocks out of the ground and setting them on fire) all but obsolete.

At first Mr. Gunn's observations about conservation and landfill gas were dead on. We allow millions of BTU's to escape into the atmosphere by not recapturing landfill gas. Talk about a renewable energy source, we Missourians are really good at producing landfill waste. But as I read further, his assertions seemed more like bullet points culled from an outdated Powerpoint presentation. "Decentralized Power" (AKA Smart Grid) sounds good but it certainly doesn't jibe with his next point.

"All of these generating options combined with large scale nuclear, natural gas and coal generation can push Missouri to the forefront of electricity generation."

Forefront? Really?! That's like saying lead-based paint and asbestos insulation will make us leaders in renovating our aging housing stock.

What was missing from Mr. Gunn's piece should have seemed obvious. We have to rebuild our power distribution grid (Smart Grid) if rooftop solar and microwind are going to work. We need to seek out utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric to discover and duplicate their best practices. PG&E is a utility that is figuring out the 21st Century power distribution model, how to stay relevant and actually profit from it. California's energy needs are far outpacing Missouri's, yet PG&E has no plans for new nuclear power plants. How is that possible? Maybe we should ask them?!

Have we not learned the lessons of our predecessors? Human beings are still being sent down coal shafts to either die now from a cave-in or die later from black lung. If we're not getting rocks to burn by mining, we're blowing the tops off Appalachian mountains and filling in the streams below, upsetting a delicate ecosystem. And large scale nuclear?! Really?! Cuba of all places is still providing humanitarian aid to Chernobyl victims by taking in children whom to this day are being born with birth defects. (link to article is in Spanish but the picture should speak a thousand words to even the most ardent "we need the jobs, economic development, pro-nuke zealot") Any technology that requires a waste disposal plan of "tens of thousands of years" is no technology any of us should accept.

As with most industries, it seems the regulators are always about a decade behind. Insurance regulators didn't understand annuities. Commerce regulators obviously didn't understand financial derivatives. And apparently some utility regulators don't understand the exponential growth of safe power generating technologies like photovoltaic, concentrated solar, geothermal, wind and micorwind. I hope Governor Nixon will take this into consideration the next time an opening becomes available on the MO Pub Commission.

City Council: Request Attorney General Investigation Now

2009-03-31T10:00:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The impasse continues. Mark Funkhouser is absolutely convinced he is correct. As he has shown with just about every controversial event in his administration, his attitude is that he is right and everyone else is wrong. There are no gray areas with this mayor.

Fresh off a major announcement of new industry coming to Kansas City I was hopeful that I would come back from a relaxing weekend out of town to find some semblance of a mayor energized with having shared the dais with Governor Nixon announcing new jobs and economic development. It was my hope that with a budget cycle behind him, the mayor would focus on "A City That Works" and devote every spare minute of his time to building on the momentum of attracting new industry. Instead, I return to sickening headlines about a "motion for judgment on the pleadings". Instead I return to a mayor still sneaking around with staffers to meet with his wife in libraries and coffee shops on what I have to assume is City business. Instead I return to the same questions from my neighbors, "What's the deal with the Mayor?" Mark Funkhouser is still fixated on his petty battle with the City Council and his growing legion of former supporters.

Since Mark Funkhouser refuses to concentrate on anything else but his personal battles with his political enemies, it's time for the highest law enforcement officer in the state to come in and hopefully settle this thing once and for all. As MO Attorney General Chris Koster implied at a recent Kansas City appearance, he would be willing to initiate an investigation into the Mayor's activities but only at the request of the City Council. It's time for the council to write that letter and initiate the investigation. For that matter, since the mayor is so convinced of his absolute intellectual superiority on all matters, he should request the investigation himself. What better way to silence his critics? An absolution of wrongdoing from the MO AG's Office might return some political capital to the 29th Floor. At the minimum it will give the Mayor a legitimate excuse to focus on his favorite cause.

Smith EV Comes To Kansas City: This time it's (almost) official.

2009-03-26T15:55:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

A couple of weeks ago I posted the news that Smith Electric Vehicles - US had signed a lease with Kansas City to put an assembly plant at KCI Airport. I was acting under the assurance of my source that it was public news. As events of the day unfolded it turned out that wasn't the case. I immediately removed the post, which I'm sure caused some confusion, and definitely caused some anger amongst those who had agreed to keep the news confidential.

I just received a press advisory from Kevin Collison at the Kansas City Star that announces a press event tomorrow. Kevin has already posted the information. Hopefully he won't cause the same uproar I did!

Details include:

The press conference will feature remarks from Missouri Governor Jeremiah W. "Jay" Nixon, United States Senator Christopher S. "Kit" Bond from Missouri,and SEV U.S. Corp Chief Executive Officer, Bryan Hansel. The press conference will be followed by a ride-and-drive demonstration of the Smith Newton – the world's largest all-electric zero-emission commercial truck.

I'm still very excited about the arrival of new industry to Kansas City. I'll just know next time to wait for an official press release.

Kudos to Councilman Russ Johnson who pursued this opportunity along with the Kansas City EDC.

This is the kind of new business Kansas City needs and I hope we continue to pursue similar opportunities to draw new technology industry to fill our increasingly empty manufacturing facilities.

Economic Development Reform: Just Campaign Rhetoric?

2009-03-24T07:55:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

There has been no shortage of internet commentary on the proposed elimination of the City Finance function that oversees economic development plans. It does seem counter intuitive to eliminate any part of a system of checks and balances. Especially a system like Tax Increment Financing which seems to serve as a lightning rod for all the perceived ills of our economic development process.

Demonizing the Economic Development Corporation has become a full time hobby for pundits and politicians alike. It's arguable that in this last election, backlash against some very questionable TIF deals swept some candidates into office by their very vocal promises of "TIF reform". I myself have been critical of TIF in areas like the Country Club Plaza. But even a critic needs to be objective, or you lose your perspective, and your credibility. While I question the logic of an organization obtaining revenue from a percentage of the subsidies it issues, I can't allow myself to believe there's a nefarious undercurrent drawing EDC employees to behave in a manner that damages Kansas City. The EDC only paints the picture, it's the TIF Commission and ultimately the City Council who approve the deals. Even if the EDC is helping put together the worst deal imaginable, doesn't the ultimate blame lie with the TIF Commissioners and our elected representatives who appointed them?

So is there a problem with the EDC? Public perception certainly seems to feel there is. Even if there isn't a problem, an organization suffering from negative public perception must take steps to alleviate it. But we as taxpayers cannot expect the EDC to restructure itself. It falls to our elected officials to right the wrongs that they promised they would in their campaigns.

We will find out soon enough if the City Finance Department responsibilites will be eliminated, but the real challenge should be issued to those who promised "TIF reform" to do something more than ignore the process and then complain when a TIF deal becomes an agenda item at a committee meeting. If we agree that moving retail from one location to another is not "economic development", then redefine it. If we agree there is a problem with the funding percentage formula, then change it. If we agree that TIF funds should not be used to build parking garages, then stop it. If we feel that developer's legal fees extracted from TIF funds are too excessive, then cap them.

We don't need "new tools". We have plenty. What we need are leaders with creative solutions to improve upon the economic development processes we already have in place. There's always room for improvement, and I'm confident our economic development officials would be willing to work towards making those improvements. They may even have some ideas of their own. The question is, would anybody listen?

Hotel Savoy: Another Taxpayer Money Grab?

2009-03-18T07:40:00.010-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Years ago in 1998, the owner of the Hotel Savoy approached the TIF Commission hat in hand asking for millions of dollars to renovate his investment. He had the high-powered development attorneys, he had the foam board exhibits to show what a mess the place was because of "deferred maintenance". He even had the ubiquitous "Phase II" plans which as we all know wow the crowd but never come to fruition. A young savvy TIF Commissioner asked a very obvious question of the applicant, "If you're the one who owned this place for the last 35 years, isn't it your fault that you've let it fall into such a horrible state?" "Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for your self-made problems?" The foam boards were quickly stowed and the proposal tabled until another meeting. More than a few stink eyes were directed at the young Commissioner. The development team regrouped and figured a way around the commissioner and his bothersome questions. The plan eventually passed.

As an aside, credit the previous two Kansas City Business Journal stories I linked to the late great Jim Davis. You're still missed Jim.

Fast forward to 2009. The same owner never did complete the project, let alone get to the impressive "Phase II" part. Yesterday, Kevin Collison, possibly the last remaining employee of the Kansas City Star reported that the Hotel Savoy is under contract by a new buyer who is seeking to have the original expiring TIF plan extended. I'm pleased there's a new developer seeking to acquire the property and actually do something with it. His resume makes him sound like someone who actually knows what he's doing. I also can't condemn him for seeking public assistance, as anyone will tell you it's almost impossible to turn down free money in Kansas City especially when it's so easy to get. What I do have a problem with is the original owner, now the seller, profiting from what essentially equates to squatting on a property until he can profit from it. If you or I were selling our house, and the potential buyer pointed out that it needed a new roof, aren't we generally expected to lower our asking price by that amount? We don't tell the buyer to go out and ask the taxpayers to buy him a new roof, do we?

Much like the Boley Building deal, of which I also pointed out this trend, in commercial real estate in Kansas City this is not how it works. No, the seller pumps up the asking price by the amount they are sure the buyer can skim from the TIF Commission and possibly the PIEA or LCRA and pockets the money, with a nice chunk going to the lawyers who know how to work the system. When does it end? Maybe it ends here. The following email reached my Inbox this morning:

Friends,

At a time when the City suffers from an $85 million budget shortfall and city leaders want to raise taxes, the City Council has given away more of your tax money to a big developer in yet another tax increment financing (TIF) project.

If that weren't enough of an outrage, the ordinances used to create this new TIF were drafted for a different developer more than ten years ago. These ordinances, passed by a completely different City Council have been "held in committee" and are now being used to save a developer from going through the usual approval process.

Take a stand against this outrage.

1. Contact the City Council members below and tell them to ask the Mayor to veto ordinances number 990348 and 990349, also referred to as the Savoy Hotel Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Plan. Be sure to tell them that if a veto occurs, they should vote against any attempt to override it. These are the council members we think are persuadable. Focus on them first. If you have time, hit the others (http://www.kcmo.org/council.nsf/council/home?opendocument).

Beth Gottstein
Phone: (816) 513-1616
E-mail: jim_giles@kcmo.org

Cindy Circo
Phone: (816) 513-1633
E-mail: gina_boucher@kcmo.org

Cathy Jolly
Phone: (816) 513-1602
E-mail: lisa_sturgeon@kcmo.org

Jan Marcason
Phone: (816) 513-1617
E-mail: susan_borge@kcmo.org

2. Join your fellow citizens this Thursday, March 19 from 3:00 to 5:00 on the 26th floor of City Hall to take a stand in favor of fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps I would have toned down the language of the email. I don't wish to demonize the developer. He's had no part of the last 40 years of this mess. I would simply ask that our elected officials use their influence to convince the owner of the Hotel Savoy that he should lower his asking price, thus eliminating the need for the buyer to ask for so much public subsidy.

After all, is it really fair for someone to profit from their own inaction?

Bus Shelters Beat Little Blue Signs

2009-03-10T07:00:00.000-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Riding the bus in Kansas City can be downright difficult. Sure the KCATA has a website, there have been marketing campaigns in both print and broadcast media, and we're even on Google Transit. But is internet access as a precursor to public transportation really a good policy?

Fact is, no clever marketing campaign can beat information. Simple, clear, concise posted schedules. Most vibrant bus systems have shelters or at the minimum stands that have route and schedule information clearly posted. Approach any one of these very visible bus stops and within minutes you can ascertain what buses you can expect at that stop and when the next one will be arriving. Many times while traveling to other cities I have forgone a taxi because of a very inviting bus shelter that told me what I needed to know. "When's the next bus?" and "Where is it headed?" All with a simple laminated schedule and map.

Kansas City's network of bus stops runs the gamut from flashy MAX stops to the more ubiquitous little blue Metro sign. A tiny blue sign bolted to a steel post or telephone pole does not instill much confidence in potential riders. Especially when the only message that sign conveys is "Metro" and "25 Troost". That doesn't tell the non-experienced transit rider very much. How long would you be willing to stand next to one of these signs waiting for a bus that may or may never arrive? And if you're not familiar with the system, what the heck is a "55 Rockhill" anyway? Where will that take you?

Then there's the issue of weather. In the winter the rain and snow falls, the cold winds blow and in the summer the scorching sun makes standing by a little blue sign inhospitable unless you're dressed like an outdoor adventurer.

If we really want to get people riding transit, it has to be visible, and utilitarian. Bus stops and shelters need to stand out and they need to convey enough information that even the most novice of travelers can be confident they will arrive at their intended destination.

But then there's the ever present constraint to improving our transit system. Money. At a time when the KCATA is actually cutting routes it seems an impossible dream to attempt to improve the infrastructure of the system. That's why we need to be creative, and as I always advocate, ~~steal~~ find inspiration from other cities.

The city of Miami struck a very creative deal with a New York company named Fuel Outdoor Advertising. As the name implies, Fuel is in the business of selling and displaying ads. One of Miami's businesses is providing transit to its citizens. They found a mutually beneficial project. Fuel is installing 600 solar-powered bus shelters throughout the Miami. Under the 20-year arrangement, Miami gets the shelters for free and Fuel gets a place to display its customers’ ads, with no digging up concrete for electrical service needed.

Requests For Proposals (RFPs) go out every day from companies and municipalities. The term is self-explanatory. What would it cost for Kansas City to see if any advertising company is willing to buy us some bus shelters? As they say in sales, if you don't ask, the answer is always "no".

L.A. Consequential: It ain't over till it's over

2009-03-05T07:47:00.004-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Yesterday I talked about a "failed" initiative in Los Angeles to compel their public utility to provide 400MW of solar power on public buildings by 2014. Stop the presses! Or at least stop hitting the "Publish Post" button on Blogger.

A keen observer has informed me that the election is still too close to call. Sound familiar?

From cleantechnica.com:

At last count, the measure appeared to be on the verge of failing, with the “No” votes ahead by 1,322 votes — a narrow 0.6 percent — and only one precinct, with about 156 ballots, left unreported. But supporters still have a chance, as thousands of late, provisional and write-in ballots have yet to be tallied.

This was the only part of newly re-elected Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's ambitious plan for Los Angeles that remains unfulfilled. (Yeah but where's his New Tools initiative and what does his wife have to say about it?).

So until the provisional ballots are counted, the election will not be certified. The real kicker?
According to cleantechnica.com the measure

didn’t technically need to take the plan to the voters at all. But the mayor’s office wanted residents to have an opportunity to weigh in, said David Libatique, LA’s associate director for energy and the environment. “It’s a huge investment in public money, and people in LA should have the opportunity to say yes,”

I'll be watching developments on this election. I still think it's a wonderful idea for Kansas City and hopefully some progressive councilman will introduce the ordinance.

Or we could just keep waving panties around and calling each other racists. Yeah that sounds a lot more productive.

L.A. Consequential: How 'not' to create new jobs in the energy sector

2009-03-04T08:20:00.001-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The Los Angeles City Council let the voters decide yesterday if they want to move forward into the 21st Century and begin demanding that their electricity come from something other than digging rocks out of the ground and setting them on fire.

Measure B. would have required the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to install 400 megawatts worth of solar panels on commercial rooftops by 2014. The idea was to give an extra incentive to LA's power utility to move away from 19th Century coal-fired power plants from which half the city's electricity production currently comes. It further hoped to create jobs in the burgeoning industry of clean tech.

The only opposition to the measure came from the LA Times and private solar installers who rightfully claimed that it squeezed them out of fairly competing for commercial installations because the wording of the measure gave LADWP exclusive rights on installation, operation and maintenance of solar projects on City property. The measure failed by the thinnest of margins. 110,505 against to 109,183 for. Apparently voters like clean energy but they don't like monopolies. Good for them. The Council should have crafted a better measure.

Kansas City could learn much from this measure. The framework has already been written. With some minor tweaking, I think we could modify it to suit our needs.

First, take out the language that California critics said was a giveaway to the utility. Then we have to understand that Missouri does not have the type of state tax credits that make solar such an attractive investment in California. Nor does the sun shine here with as much intensity and for as many weeks as it does in the south west. We also have to understand that every Spring there is a tendency for giant frozen baseballs known as hail to fall from the sky which would wreak havoc on glass substrate solar panels.

BUT, before we throw up our hands and say "we can't do it" we need to concentrate on what we "do" have. We have the Federal tax credit that refunds up to 30% of an alternative energy installation, and we have great potential for small wind. And some creative engineering could lessen the potential for hail damage. A little midwest ingenuity could put us on the map, so to speak, of renewable energy towns.

Kansas City has much to gain from putting a measure like this before the voters. Something much more modest using a combination of solar and wind would be easily reachable. Who knows? Maybe we could lessen the need for new substations shoehorned into residential neighborhoods, see some vacant manufacturing facilities put back into service, and possibly even create a job or two along the way. I think that is economic development we can all get behind.

Use Cameras To Enforce Parking Laws

2009-02-26T06:38:00.004-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

I support the red light cameras. I have no Orwellian fears of "the state" tracking my movements. Are any of us really that important that we warrant tracking? I have no issues with "chain of custody" arguments. I'm comfortable with the fact that photos and videos will be secure and reviewed by trained police officers before a ticket is issued. What I don't understand is the Star's editorial entitled "Drivers deserve to be warned about cameras". Really? Isn't that kind of like saying, "don't break the law at this particular intersection"? At every other intersection it's a free for all!

Aside from the ridiculous amount of infrastructure KC is using for one of these camera-enforced intersections (where did we get this vendor?) I find this a great use of technology that frees officers to respond to 911 calls and perform other more pertinent tasks. Kansas City is not the first municipality to employ red light cameras and the technology and processes will only continue to improve.

In fact, I would like to see an expansion of the red light camera technology for parking enforcement. How many times have you seen someone who thinks they're more important than the rest of the proletariat make their own parking space, or worse yet occupy a handicap space because they're "only going to run in for couple of minutes"? In the Brookside shopping district it seems like people think the big blue sign with the white outline of a wheelchair is the international symbol for "ATM Parking". Then there's the other segment who has the proper handicap plate or review mirror tag but they personally have no need for it. "It's for my grandmother" or some such nonsense you hear when a local news station does their yearly "bust the scofflaws" series during sweeps month.

A small camera posted at parking spots throughout the city would go a long way towards coercing people into behaving themselves when it comes to respecting the rights of others. The same policies could be employed as with the red light cameras, a review of the picture and or video by a trained law enforcement official. And we could satisfy the Star editorial board's desire to give people adequate warning. We could clearly mark each parking space with a big blue sign with an outline of a person in a wheelchair.