The Kansas City Post

After Oil - The rest of the story

2008-07-15T07:52:00.001-05:00

By Kevin Klinkenberg
The Kansas City Post

For several years now I’ve been making a living somehow by extolling the virtues of walkable urbanism. I give countless presentations on how much of a pleasure it is to live in a neighborhood where one can walk to many of life’s daily needs, and your entire lifestyle is not chained to an automobile. For me, that neighborhood is now Volker, where I’m just a couple blocks off of 39th Street. The simple joys of walking to the ice cream store, to a bar, to buy a card or coffee are hard to express unless you’ve not been able to do that for most of your life.

You can call this approach whatever you like – New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Quality Places, Traditional Neighborhood Design. But the basic premise is simple – a great many of us simply prefer to live our lives in neighborhoods where walking is a normal, daily activity – not something done simply for exercise.

What is apparent these days is that we haven’t been nearly aggressive enough in making more places walkable. This is especially so in the Midwest and Kansas City, where living without a car is frankly unimaginable to most. I wrote previously about how the changing dynamics in energy are beginning to impact us, and will continue to do so. Don’t believe me? Fine, listen to T Boone Pickens, any executive of an oil company or any geologist who studies what is going on.

So I left us last time with – what do we do? Do we just throw in the towel and hide in our homes and on our computers? Hardly – that’s not the standard of living which we expect. But we will have to re-order our lives in some fairly simple ways. Fortunately, many of the ways are things that we actually enjoy as human beings, and provide a side benefit of being healthy for us.

For example, getting back to walking. Remember walking? Count on doing more of it. Bicycling, too. And that dreaded “t” word will rear its head – transit. Yes, transit. We will all increasingly be taking public transportation on a regular basis if we are to lead productive, fulfilling lives.

It really is going to be that simple. Our lives as the 21st century progresses will in many ways resemble the lives our forefathers did in the 19th century. We will have to re-order our daily existence to live in walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods. This will of course not be an easy thing to do – we’ve spent all of the last 60 years building an infrastructure that supports sprawling, car-oriented development patterns. Many folks simply cannot survive today without the use of a personal vehicle for every trip outside of the house. This will have to change, and change fairly quickly.

The greatest opportunity to accommodate the new 21st century lifestyle is paradoxically the places we abandoned in the 20th century. Our pre-WWII neighborhoods, especially in Kansas City, Missouri, were designed and built on a system of streetcars and walkability. They are tailor-made for the way will we need to live in the future. But will our city leadership strive to take advantage of this opportunity?

Some consider rail transit, for example, an expense that is hard to justify, even though a continuous, diverse urban fabric is simply not possible without it. Others worry about accommodating far-flung commuters in perhaps the least-dense metro area into the country. Instead, why don’t we work on making the old city itself a haven of walkability, quality density and transit-friendliness? What if we worked hard to make the City great, and welcomed the formerly car-dependent into its arms? Why would we assume that 50 years from now people will still be living in low-density towns such as Grain Valley wanting to commute into downtown Kansas City?

In the course of history there are often “game-changing” events that reshape how we live. The advent of elevators made it possible for cities to grow in denser concentrations than previously imagined. Air conditioning has made living in southern climates tolerable year-round, even opening up the possibility of inhabiting the desert. Modern sewage treatment made urban living clean and safe. And the rise of the personal automobile created a dispersed city form unlike anything seen previously in human history.

But that era of cheap and easy motoring is over. Let’s all mourn its death – it had its fun moments, but it also has left us decades worth of problems to correct. The future can be better, if we seize it.

2008. Year one of AO – After Oil

2008-07-14T07:39:00.000-05:00

By Kevin Klinkenberg
The Kansas City Post

I’m sitting outside on a beautiful night in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and here I am thinking about oil. The phrase – “get a life” comes to mind. But, it’s on my mind as I watch cars roar by on an overly-wide one way street in this sleepy downtown, sitting in an outdoor café that used to be a fast-food joint. My chair is nestled against a rail that separates me from the surface parking lot in front of the building. It’s an apt scene for thinking about the future of energy and our way of life.

I think history will mark history will mark 2008 as year one of AO – After Oil. We are entering a new era that will impact our lives and our cities in ways just as profound as the automobile era did starting in the 20th century. As your grief counselor, let me just advise you that it’d be best for us all to quickly proceed through the 5 stages of grief, so that we can get on to more productive lives. Which stage are you in?

Denial – “This isn’t really happening, it’s only a temporary blip”
Anger – “It’s the greedy oil companies, Arabs, politicians (insert favorite enemy here)”
Bargaining – “If we just all buy hybrid cars we’ll be fine!”
Depression – “The economy is collapsing, our society is doomed!”

Instead, we all should move on to Acceptance – the era of cheap oil is over, and with it the easy motoring lifestyle that we’ve all grown accustomed to (including me). Our lifestyles are going to be permanently altered by world events, so let’s go ahead and start changing so we can enjoy ourselves more quickly. Welcome to the Post-Petroleum Era.

You may have heard the phrase “peak oil” before, or even read a book or two about it. Briefly, allow me to clarify what is going on, so we can move past the Denial stage. The world is not running out of oil tomorrow, or next year or 10 years from now. But what we are running out of is the cheap, easily accessible oil. On top of that, our ability to produce more globally is constrained – all projections by everyone in and outside the industry shows a flattening of worldwide production in the next few years. And if that weren’t enough, worldwide demand is increasing exponentially, thanks to burgeoning economies in places like China, India, Brazil, Russia and the Middle East.

One quick example – India currently contains about 300 million people that are considered “middle class”, up from less than 100 million 15 years ago. That number is projected to double to 600 million by 2020 – a little over 10 years from now. Now, middle class in India is not the same as middle class in the US, but it does mean another population equal to the entire US who will be upgrading their lifestyles and vehicles. It might mean just a motorized scooter or bike, or a small car. But it’s a substantial increase in demand regardless. And the same thing is happening in China and the other places I noted above. Those who think the recent spike in oil prices are because of a falling US dollar, or in any way tied to the American economy are simply in that first phase of grief – Denial.

So it’s in this context that we must understand the sharp rise in gasoline prices, and what the future holds for us. No amount of biofuels, electric cars or fuel-efficient gasoline engines will change the fundamental dilemma facing us and the world – it simply is going to get more and more expensive to drive our cars, to the point where many, if not most, middle class households will have to sharply curtail driving. In fact, many of us may simply not be able to afford personal motorized transportation at all.

So what do we do? That’s the subject for the next column – stay tuned…

Let Citizen Committees Do Their Job

2008-07-07T08:31:00.001-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The citizen committee culture in Kansas City is something of which I've long been critical. On the surface it sounds like a solid idea. Appoint qualified, civic-minded individuals to study a problem and recommend a solution. Use the talent and experience being offered free of charge of those who wish simply to contribute to the common good. Unfortunately, that is not how citizen committees actually work, or not work if you will.

I have had the honor of serving on three mayoral appointed committees. With the exception of the Competitive Review Committee (my first) it has been my experience that the dirty little secret about citizen committees is they really don't reach any of their own conclusions. Mostly committees are a group of individuals, some wishing to contribute, some wishing to pad a civic resume and even one or two just looking for a captive audience to which they can complain about some cause or perceived injustice. Committees watch presentations from paid consultants who are given the real task of developing a solution. The presentations and information provided by the consultants is usually weighted to lead the committee to the conclusions the consultant team inevitably wants implemented. Not that there's anything nefarious going on with the consultants. We all have bias when it comes to our work, so why wouldn't a paid professional present his or her conclusions in a positive light and less desirable solutions in a more negative fashion?

In a time when we're all being asked to tighten our financial belts it occurs to me there is a layer of inefficiency in our citizens' advisory committee system. We have two choices from the way I see it. Remove the citizens advisory committees altogether and have the consultants present directly to the City Council, or remove the consultants and appoint citizen advisory committees with relevant qualifications to do the actual work. It would seem the latter would be the most cost effective choice for the taxpayers.

Kansas City is blessed with an abundance of professionals from every walk of life who are more than willing, and more than qualified to serve on committees and offer sensible recommendations for a variety of civic issues. I have served with architects, engineers, financiers, attorneys and just about any other type of profession who were more than qualified to offer professional opinions of a variety of subjects. The best part? They're willing to do this for free. The only consultants needed in this process would be a professional selection committee since the Mayor and Council do not seem to have the ability to keep from also appointing their friends, enemies, daughter's dance teacher, wife's friends, large contributors or complete lunatics.

Put together a competent group of citizens with backgrounds germane to the issue and watch what civic-minded people can do. To those who would argue that you get what you pay for? How many light rail plans have we paid for in the last 30 years? With all that money wasted on consultants we could have already laid a few miles of track, or a few hundred yards of modern sewer. Maybe even paved a street or two.

Green sewers, or just a green bandwagon?

2008-06-16T13:05:00.002-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

It seems every politician is jumping on the green bandwagon these days. And why not? Who wants to be on record as being against helping the environment? But in their fervor to be on the side of righteousness, some politicos fail to educate themselves on what green solutions really are.

Last month eight members of the City Council drafted and signed a letter to the City Manager calling for $500 million worth of green solutions to be included in the upcoming EPA mandated combined sewer remediation plan. The eight self-anointed environmental stewards complain that their consciences cannot withstand a sewer plan that only contains $30 million in green solutions. With an EPA deadline looming in July, it seems foolish to come in at the last minute with grandiose suggestions of environmentally friendly sewage treatment techniques. The time for that was months before the final project plans began taking shape. Massive civil engineering projects cannot be changed at the last minute like the wall color in your new kitchen. Where were councilmembers Ed Ford, Cindy Circo, Terry Riley, Beth Gottstein, Melba Curls, John Sharp, Cathy Jolly and Sharon Sanders Brooks months ago during the planning process? Certainly not studying sewage treatment techniques. Now in the eleventh hour they draft a letter asking for a half billion dollars for solutions of which they have no concept, only that they're green and that sounds really neat!

At this stage the only goal should be satisfying the EPA so we don't end up in federal court. We have enough legal issues at City Hall right now. As far as "green solutions" I'm all for them. But isn't preventing raw sewage from flowing into open waters by definition "green?" It would seem we can always go back and install another rain garden or two after we stop dumping raw sewage. I'm certainly not against passive treatment techniques, but I'm more against flushing our toilets directly into Brush Creek. I also understand that even the current plan doesn't completely eliminate sewage overflow. If any extra money needs to be spent, it needs to be spent on a more sanitary plan, not a more trendy one.

There are plenty of environmental issues for the newly minted environmentalists on the city council to pursue. Certainly most of them don't have a July deadline. What about clean air? We need look no further than our own back yards to find a major environmental hazard. According to the EPA, using a gas-powered lawnmowers for an hour generates as many volatile organic compounds—dangerous airborne pollutants as driving a typical car for 350 miles. With 54 million Americans mowing their lawns on a weekly basis, gas lawnmower emissions account for as much as five percent of the nation’s total air pollution. Beyond that, homeowners spill some 17 million gallons of gasoline every year just refueling their lawnmowers. Factor in gas-powered string trimmers and leaf blowers and those disturbing numbers continue to climb.

Why not promote green initiatives for lawn care in Kansas City? And I don't mean drafting a letter to the City Manager asking him to "fix the air." Come up with the plan yourselves. You weren't elected to write position papers. I met most of you on the campaign trail and I don't recall "I'll write a memo" being an answer any of you gave at the campaign forums.

Regional Transit Needs A Regional Leader

2008-06-11T07:35:00.003-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

A few weeks ago I attended a Mayor's Town Hall meeting in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The Mayor made some opening remarks during which he talked about his campaign rhetoric that "the first TIF plan that comes across my desk better be for the East side." He then went on to admit that he now realizes it was foolish to make such proclamations without being fully educated on the minutia of economic development in Kansas City. He explained that he did not realize that current economic development tools do not lend themselves to small-scale development. Was Mark Funkhouser actually admitting he was wrong? Perhaps there was hope after all. Of course within a few minutes he turned to the topic of light rail and made the definitive statement "any light rail plan has to go down Troost." So much for learning from your mistakes.

Despite my skepticism about the Mayor's specific plan, a regional transit plan may actually be a possibility. With gasoline prices continuing their upward climb, people are starting to feel the pinch of commuting across our sprawling metro. Commuter bus routes are becoming overwhelmed with new riders and suburban municipalities are left scrambling to find funding to add capacity. Perhaps the concept of a true regional transit authority and funding mechanism finally makes sense to even the most obstinate of metro suburbanites.

All things considered (my apologies to NPR) Mark Funkhouser is not the right leader for this initiative. Sometimes in order to lead you have to know when to step aside and I believe with all his troubles; a pending civil lawsuit alleging discrimination and retaliation, a pending lawsuit against the City Council regarding the City Manager contract, an openly hostile relationship with certain City Councilpersons and a growing number of Kansas City voters with buyer's remorse the mayor of Kansas City is not the leader we need for a regional cooperative. Steel plates still appear throughout the city improperly installed in direct defiance of the Mayor's own ordinance. It's impossible to put faith in someone to construct a multi-billion dollar transit system when he can't even oversee a simple street maintenance policy.

A regional transit plan needs a regional leader. I believe the Jackson County Executive to be a far more logical choice to promote solutions to our transit woes. Two of the most transit hungry suburban municipalities (Blue Springs and Lee's Summit) lie within Jackson County. Mike Sanders may not want to step in and garner the appearance that he's trying to steal the Mayor's thunder, but I think now is the time to put the welfare of our citizenry above the possible hurt feelings of one (or two) individual(s) who most likely will be a private citizen by May of 2011. What say ye Mike Sanders? Your county needs you.

Downtown parking is not the problem

2008-05-08T07:23:00.006-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

It's difficult to revive an urban center with people who are suburban minded. Kansas City wants to compete with Dallas, Minneapolis, and even Chicago, but we're trying to do so with leaders who seemed convinced that acres of blacktop parking lots are the answer. I'm consistently ~~amazed~~ annoyed by what seems to be the new slogan for downtown. "But where will I park?"

Maybe if some of these self-appointed leaders would venture outside of Missouri once in a while they might get a sense of how vibrant urban centers actually work. Recently The Star's Kevin Collison penned a piece called "Seeing Red Over Meters" in which he quotes Jonathan Kemper, president and CEO of Commerce Bank, Downtown Council member, and board member of the Citizens Association. "It will drive people out of downtown" he grouses when referring the the idea that the City Council may raise parking meter rates to (gasp!) $1 and hour. Mr. Kemper then goes on to disparage hard-working police parking enforcement officials by calling them "nasty." Nice.

The article goes on to mention a scientific poll conducted by the Star in which 90 percent of respondents thought downtown needed free parking. What a shocker. You need a scientific poll to tell you people like things that are free?! I think I just found my calling. I'm going to become a pollster. Maybe the airlines will pay me to conduct a scientific poll that people would prefer airfares to be free. I'm also pleased to announce that a group of six-year olds at my neighborhood playground explained to me that their lives would be significantly better if they each had a pony.

The world runs on supply and demand. A simple price-elasticity graph will show you where to set the parking rates. Limited parking creates activity. People park farther away and walk, maybe patronizing a business on the way. People use cabs, ride the bus, carpool... That's called economic activity. Limited parking creates the need for good public transit. Higher parking meter rates create higher turnover. It keeps people moving. It opens up spaces at a higher frequency. In the business world that's called turnover or "churn" and that's a good thing. Least of all, but also important, yes parking meters provide revenue for City coffers. We might even need more of those "nasty meter maids" as Mr. Kemper so graciously refers to them. All that activity sounds pretty good to me. No urban renaissance has ever been created or sustained by free parking.

It's unfortunate that such a powerful organization like the Downtown Council can be so short-sighted. Yes downtown is enjoying a resurgence. Yes we need to keep that momentum going. But the whole reason for pursuing activity on the streets is to generate commerce (no pun intended). And even the simple act of harvesting a few quarters out of a parking meter is far better than what we had just a few short years ago. A buck an hour is not going to keep people away if your product is good enough. Perhaps the downtown leaders should concentrate on that side of the equation. Make downtown a place where people will gladly pay $1 just to be there. After all, what good is a product if you have to give it away for free?

Make sure you read that contract...

2008-04-30T10:08:00.004-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

On April 11th the City Attorney received a letter from Cordish's attorneys regarding the status of what they feel should be an exclusive festival liquor license for the Power & Light District. Tony Botello at TonysKansasCity.com was the first to hit the blogosphere with the news. It seems that Cordish is upset with current legislation in the works down at Jefferson City that would allow the creation of "festival districts" throughout the city of Kansas City.

I'm not an attorney, but I do know how to read. The letter repeatedly references Section 9.1(k) of the MDA (Master Development Agreement). I managed to obtain a copy of the MDA. All 184 pages of it. 9.1(k) basically says "you have to fulfill 9.1(a-j) or we won't close the deal." Fair enough. Any contract expects both sides to perform. I think what Cordish is most worked up about is Section 9.1(g). Here it is in its entirety.

(g) Liquor Licenses. Developer requests that the City shall use its best efforts to enable Developer or its designee and any tenant of the Urban Mixed-Use Project designated by Developer to obtain and utilize for a term of ninety-nine (99) years commencing on the Substantial Completion of the Urban Mixed-Use Project an arena type liquor license similar to the arena license utilized at Power Plant Live, Baltimore, Maryland or an Entertainment Destination Center License similar to the license issued for Fourth Street Live, Louisville, Kentucky. Such license is intended to permit designated Tenants to sell and serve open containers of alcoholic beverages in the common areas of the Urban Mixed-Use Project and on the streets and sidewalks surrounding the Urban Mixed-Use Project and shall permit their customers to consume such alcoholic beverages in such areas. The parties acknowledge that a change in Missouri law may be required.

The letter stipulates that while the advantage of exclusivity is not explicitly mentioned in the contract, there were verbal assurances and subsequent actions by the City which led Cordish to believe that they would continue to have the only festival license in Kansas City. Then something changed and in the past year not only is the City failing to protect that exclusivity, they are actively lobbying to eliminate it by passing new legislation that would allow festival licenses throughout Kansas City.

The irony is not lost on me that when the City Manager began pressuring Cordish last year to live up to their verbal promises of having the complete district open by the fall of 2007, the developer was quick to fall back on the "read the contract" defense saying that while they may, or may not have implied they would make an attempt at opening, the actual contract gives them until the end of 2008. Basically they told the City to go pound sand. Now with the tables turned, Cordish finds itself in the weak position of exclaiming "but you told us..." and the City attorney can simply say "read the contract."

Digging a little deeper, I have to wonder. Why expand the festival licenses? Why now? What has changed? According to Cordish's attorneys, "The passage of the legislation creating festival districts is bad public policy that our client believes is motivated solely by individual political contributions to individual Council persons." Political contributions affecting our city government? Say it ain't so! But please do say who gave what to whom. Inquiring minds want to know! Vague implications of graft don't carry much weight.

I'm not convinced that the loss of an exclusive festival liquor license will result in decreased revenues for the Power & Light District. But in the final analysis I have to say I think it is counterproductive that our City government is pursuing legislation that could possibly (and I'm only conceding could) have a detrimental effect on a project in which we are all so deeply invested. That MDA may have been signed by a previous administration, but we the taxpayers are left to pay for it. As my dad used to say "you dance with the gal ya brung" and in this case, like it or not, we brought Cordish to this dance. It's up to us to make the best of it.

Why all the outrage? Really???

2008-04-22T13:13:00.004-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Years ago my first job at King Radio was a dream come true. I was able to stay in Kansas City and work in the high tech field of avionics. Then the 90's hit and the economy took a downturn. Companies just weren't interested in upgrading their corporate jets and the airlines decided they could make their older avionics last a few more flight hours. Our business began to suffer, and subsequently the layoffs (at that time they were called Reductions In Force "RIFs") began. Salaries were frozen and grim-faced former employees were seen carrying their belongings to the parking lot on a quarterly basis. Those were dark times for all of us. But at least with the salary freeze we could take some small solace in knowing that nobody's lot was improving while others were kicked to the curb.

I was one of the fortunate ones who managed to escape the ax. During that time my five-year employment anniversary came around. It was customary to celebrate the milestone with a cake and congratulations from your coworkers. When my boss came around and asked me what kind of cake I would like, I replied "none." I told him I just didn't feel right "celebrating" the fact that I was still employed after having helped carry friends and coworkers belongings to their cars. Not being one to appreciate bucking tradition, he was not happy with me. I'm sure some choice comments were placed in my employment file. He informed me in a threatening manner that I would change my mind. I didn't.

Recently much has been made about the mayor and council's "rubber-stamp" vote approving their own pay raise. Some council members have hidden behind the charter claiming their hands were tied because the previous council had voted the raise in place. The mayor... Well the mayor has told us all that he needs the money. Yowzers...

I like Lynn Horsely over at the Star and think she does an excellent job covering the City Hall beat. However, I have to take issue with her recent Prime Buzz post titled "Why all the outrage now over council pay?" Lynn argues correctly that the city charter prohibits any sitting council from either raising or lowering their salary. This is true. You can read it for yourself. Article II, Division 1, Section 205.

Sec. 205. Salary.

(a) Establishment of salary. The salary of the Mayor and members of the Council shall be established by the Council, and may not be reduced or increased during any term. The salary for all members of the Council, except the Mayor, whether elected by district or at-large shall be identical. The Council may provide an additional amount to the Mayor pro tem reflecting the additional duties and responsibilities assumed by that member.

What the charter doesn't say is the mayor and council can't vote to leave their salaries unchanged. I've read through this section several times. It's not there. There is nothing in the charter that prevents a council from self-imposing a salary freeze. I find it ironic that a legislative group can expend so much time and energy combing through the charter to justify their decision about extending a new contract to the City Manager but can't spend five minutes to read one sentence about salaries.

At a time when many city workers will be forced out the door to find work in a tough job market, it's more important than ever to show leadership. Leadership is not firing people while giving yourself a raise. Leadership is also not hiding in a back room while the rest of your council colleagues face the tough decisions in the light of day. Councilperson Beth Gottstein may feel she is being magnanimous by offering to give back her raise to the general fund, but running (literally) from the council chambers rather than making a tough vote is not leadership. Leaders make good decisions. Leaders make bad decisions. But leaders don't shrink from the mantle of making any decision at all. What good is a legislator who only votes when it's easy?

The mayor and council have missed the mark on this one. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head on this vote. Contrary to what some may think, there were options. If there weren't, there wasn't a need for a vote in the first place. I wonder what last week's vote would have been had the previous council established the pay rate to be minimum wage? Something tells me the vote would have been a little different.

Payday Loans Ordinance: Right idea, wrong implementation

2008-04-01T08:16:00.002-05:00

By Nicole Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

On April 8th we will be asked to vote on a new ordinance restricting the operations of so-called “payday loan” offices in Kansas City.

I fully support parts of this legislation such as the exterior signage limitations and location restrictions and commend the city council's attempt at protecting Kansas City neighborhoods. However, I wholly disagree with the annual licensing fees contained in the ordinance.

What’s the problem? The fees are ineffective and inefficient in that:

1) The ordinance imposes only a $1000 renewal fee – enough to make payday loan establishments complain a little, but not enough to shut one down.

2) The ordinance ultimately results in a tax on the poor because the payday loan establishments will pass along the cost of the fee to its customers.

3) The ordinance directs this “tax on the poor” back to the city. It is abhorrent for payday loans to make money off of poor people, but through this ordinance, the city will too.

4) The only way to put payday loans out of business it to take away their customer base. Any fees that are collected through this ordinance should be directed to consumer education and counseling – not to the city.

5) The fees collected through this ordinance are purported to fund 2 or 3 inspectors. I am skeptical the predicted licensing revenues will account not only for the cost of salaries and benefits of the inspectors but the peripheral costs of administration and enforcement as well. The city can barely handle the financial problems it already has – why take on more?

6) Banking regulation is best handled at the state level, or perhaps, federal level. The payday loan problem is too complex to handle at the city level with the exception of density zoning which has proven successful in other communities.

I’m sure this attempt at a crack-down on payday loan establishments will pass. After all, it feels right to tax the bad guys – it makes voters feel like the government is doing something to help the community. Unfortunately, I don’t think helping the community is that simple. Consequently, I won’t be voting to impose a minuscule fee on payday loan establishments – even though I think they’re bottom-feeding scam artists.

Attract new industry, not old ideas

2008-03-24T12:05:00.003-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Kansas City has long sought to become a leader in industry. In the 60's it was defense manufacturing with Bendix. In the 70's Armco Steel was the hope for many to maintain a strong base of manufacturing jobs. In the 80's, the emergence of Sprint promised to make KC the backbone of a fiber optic long distance telecom network. The 90's saw the emergence of bio-sciences led by The Stowers Institute. With each passing decade we attempt to latch on to one particular industry in the hopes that we have found the it thing. The only common denominator seems to be that we continue to fail in learning the lesson that singularity of focus in economic development leads to eventual failure.

With the recent announcement that Smith Electric Vehicles is coming to the United States, and intends to build a manufacturing facility in North America, it stands to reason that EV's (Electric Vehicles) will soon grace the streets of our more progressive U.S. communities. It's no longer a question of if the United States will begin pursuing alternative fuel transportation modes, but when.

I am the first to admit that the alternative fuel industry is hardly mature. The metro only has one EV dealership to date and it remains to be seen whether suburbanites will catch on to electric cars as anything more than a fad. Solar power is viable today, but only in states with significant subsidies. Our current group in Jefferson City is more enamored with ethanol than a truly clean and renewable resource like the sun. Wind and hydrogen power also show promise but are mired in technological problems that have yet to be solved. Yet even with these limitations, the promise of a new industry based around sustainable energy is too great to ignore. The Automotive X-Prize will elevate the profile of real solutions to our dependence on fossil fuels. Tesla Roadster has gone into production of their Lotus-designed electric sportscar. Phoenix Motorcar is already making fleet deliveries of their electric SUT (Sport Utility Truck) and will soon follow up with an electric SUV. Even General Motors is still sticking by their assurances that the Chevy Volt is more than just vaporware and will grace showroom floors in 2010.

Back to Smith EV. Usually by the time a company issues a press release, the opportunity to make the pitch to Consider Kansas City has probably passed, but I think it is important for our economic development officials to stay on top of new opportunities involving sustainable energy. Once Smith EV arrives and begins making inroads into the US delivery truck industry, other manufacturers are sure to follow suit. These are the kinds of gambles we should be taking in the area of creating new jobs.

I'm certainly not advocating pursuing green industry while forsaking all others. We should certainly continue to invite all types of industry to locate in the metro. It just makes sense to me that if everything is going to be "up to date in Kansas City" we need to be up to date on what's coming over the horizon, not fading into the past.

Finding new sources of revenue

2008-03-11T11:22:00.001-05:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

In the current round of budgeting there appears to be a serious shortfall. Most estimates I've seen come in around $78 million. It's obvious that when you're short on revenue you have to spend less. The city council faces some tough decisions on where cuts are to be made.

What strikes me the most is in all this talk about the budget, everyone is proposing cuts, but nobody is looking at the problem from the other side. What about increasing revenue? Of course it's not just a simple matter of "finding" a few extra dollars from new sources, but when tackling finance issues it's important to take a complete approach. There are many opportunities to squeeze a few more dollars into the city coffers. You just have to be creative.

Many times I have been told that city government partnering with private interests is a non-starter. Issues of partiality, conflict of interest and many other "why we can't do it" excuses arise. Yet our own Public Works Department has launched a progressive recycling project that offers advertising space on the side of receptacles located throughout downtown. The walls of the KCI terminals are lined with advertisements. I'm sure creative minds can think of other opportunities to offset program costs by offering sponsorships. What about the Clean Sweep program? Every year the amount of dumpsters available to neighborhoods becomes fewer and fewer due to budget constraints. Why not sell advertising space on the side of the dumpsters? Playground equipment is another possibility. In a quick unscientific poll of neighbors with children, there was no opposition to an ad or two on the playground. In fact, the general reaction was one of goodwill towards any corporation who would buck up for a nice swing set or slide.

Obviously selling a few ads is not going to balance the budget. We must look to other sources. Each year millions of dollars in federal grants are distributed across the country. Municipalities obtain these grants through a process of applications, establishment of need and ability to meet various guidelines. Most municipalities acknowledge the value of these programs by retaining a development department. Kansas City is one of the few major cities that does not have even one full-time grant writer, let alone an entire department. Obtaining grants is a complicated bureacracy and asking city employees to secure grants in addition to their regular responsibilities puts Kansas City at a competitive disadvantage. It may seem counter-intuitive to add employees in a time of budget shortfall, but a grant writer position pays for itself many times over.

Municipal budgets are complicated. Prioritizing spending takes no small amount of political courage. But finding new sources of revenue will be time and effort well spent.

Buyer's remorse doesn't pay the bills

2008-02-19T13:10:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Most of us have had the experience. You find out after the fact that you've paid too much for something. Maybe it was something as small as an MP3 player. Maybe it was something bigger, like a car. You haggled as best you could until you agreed on a price you thought was fair, but as you left the dealership you glanced over your shoulder in time to see your salesman high-fiving and doing mid-air chest bumps with his co-workers. That should have been your first clue.

It's no secret the subsidies provided to Cordish & Co. to develop the Power & Light District were way too generous. That's the danger when you're dealing with an entity that competes with an almost monopolistic advantage. I mean really, how many companies out there specialize in developing entertainment districts in struggling mid-major urban centers? Other than Cordish, only McCaffery Interests comes to mind. McCaffery partnered with Graves Hospitality Corp. to develop Block E in Minneapolis, another oft-criticized deal but at least on the surface the financials look much more favorable for the taxpayers. With only one competitor that we probably didn't even contact, it's no wonder how Cordish & Co. was able to secure such favorable terms.

Kansas City is in a terrible position. The ink on the contracts is dry, the Big XII basketball tournament arrives in less than a month and Cordish is in no hurry to open any businesses. "Read the fine print on the contract you signed" seems to be the slogan for our new entertainment district. Not very catchy but at least it's honest.

Should we be angry? Of course. Vindictive? Not against the businesses in the P&L District. That would be counter-productive. There's nothing left for us to do but patronize the establishments whenever possible, try and find every positive attribute of the district and tout them to visitors, and quietly, very quietly learn from our mistakes.

The best transit plans start in the streets

2008-02-06T08:30:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The mayor and council are badly in need of a win. Nobody seems to be capable of performing the actual work they were elected to do. Forming citizen committees to make decisions for them is the only thing our leadership does well. Economic Development Policy? Form a citizen committee. Light Rail? Form a citizen committee. Sewer Infrastructure? Citizen committee. Park Land usage? Committee. Perhaps we should appoint a citizen committee to form a policy on forming citizen committees.

Maybe we should start with something simple? We should demonstrate that we can maintain a network of streets before we try and convince voters we can maintain a rail system. Why won't somebody work on the metal plates? Steel plates in our roadways are not just an annoyance, they are a hazard when not properly installed or marked. In Kansas City, steel plates become permanent fixtures instead of the temporary safety measure they are intended to be.

We need to create a strict, enforceable policy when it comes to plating and decking of our streets. The policy must be clear, and above all else it must successfully keep our streets safe for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. The policy must have guidelines for proper installation, maintenance and even length of time temporary steel plates or decking is allowed to remain in place. Additionally or City inspectors need to pay particular attention to these requirements and issue fines for failing to cover a street cut, displaced plates, failure to apply a non-skid resistant surface, failing to post proper signage or failure to finish the work and remove the plates in an allotted time period.

There is no need to appoint a citizen committee "to look into alternatives." I have used the magic of Google to track down characteristics of successful policies already in use. Most of what I have here is shamelessly ~~stolen~~ borrowed from New York City, a town that knows a thing or two about steel plates on busy streets.

(1) All plating and decking installed by the permittee shall be made safe for vehicles and/or pedestrians and shall be adequate to carry the load.

(2) The size of the plate or decking shall be large enough to span the opening, be firmly placed to prevent rocking and shall overlap the edges of trenches and openings and be sufficiently ramped to provide smooth riding and safe condition.

(3) All plating and decking shall be fastened by splicing, countersinking or otherwise protected to prevent movement.

(4) Where deflections are more than 3/4", heavier sections of plates or decking or intermediate supports shall be installed.

(5) All permittees will clearly mark each plate with a project number that corresponds to the permit for that application.

(6) A database shall be made available through the City website that will allow citizens to look up projects by their project number and obtain relevant information such as permitted project completion dates and a plain language explanation of the work being performed.

(7) All permittees who install plating and decking during the winter months shall either post signs at the site indicating "Steel Plates Ahead Raise Plow" or shall countersink said plates flush to the level of the roadway. All signs shall be of the size and type specified in the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These signs shall be placed on the sidewalk, adjacent to the curb, facing vehicle traffic five feet prior to the plates. On two-way streets, signs shall be placed on both sides of the street five feet prior to the plates.

(8) All plating and decking shall have a skid-resistant surface equal to or greater than the adjacent existing street or roadway surface.

This should be an easy one for the mayor and council. A layup. Save some tires and rattled teeth and maybe those citizen satisfaction surveys might improve. I realize policy isn't fun. It's boring, tedious work and there aren't any golden shovels to break ground with or giant scissors to cut ribbons, but maybe a little bit of policy work will pay some dividends down the road... So to speak.

Statement to the Citizens Task Force on Light Rail

2008-01-28T08:21:00.000-06:00

The following is a statement read to the members of the Citizens Light Rail Task Force by Fred Buckley at the January 21st meeting. It is published here in its entirety.

Members of the Task Force,

I would like to speak this evening about a few things, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Over the past almost 6 months, we have gathered for 3 hours a night on average of once every two weeks. We have discussed, argued, disagreed, come to a consensus, and talked at length about light rail in Kansas City. We have done this with the understanding that we were making recommendation to the ATA and City Council, and that they were listening to us. I don’t believe this is happening.

We recommended that the city repeal Clay’s plan that the voters approved as long as they were going to place another plan on the ballot at the same time. They didn’t.

We recommended that the bus tax renewal and new light rail tax be on the same ballot. This is not going to happen.

We are now hearing that the mayor does not want the ATA to run the light rail system if it is approved. Then why is this an ATA committee?

We are told that $600 million will build a 12 mile route, and this is on the conservative side. We have a 14 mile or more system. Which part doesn’t get built?

According to Jeffery Boothe, we are told we would be more likely to receive federal funding with a regional system; we have dealt with a starter line. If we do just a starter line, and unless the rules change, we won’t have the ridership or density for the expansion to get federal funding.

This year alone, before a vote on the 3/8th cent light rail tax will even go to the voters, the city residents will have to renew a 3/8th cent bus tax, which isn’t guaranteed, and learn how much their water and sewer bills will go up because of a $3.5-5.5 billion combined sewer overhaul, all of this before a vote on ANOTHER 3/8th cent sales tax for light rail. Now, I ask you, which is the odd tax out?

I am a genuine and staunch supporter of light rail. I have seen its economic development potential, the increased ability to commute, and the joy of being able to get between entertainment districts with ease, but I don’t see this in Kansas City. We have people on this task force that don’t want light rail at all. Why, on a committee that was put together to find a way for light rail to work, do we have people whose purpose is to kill it? I have attended all but one meeting, the 2nd one. I have attended the public hearings, council sessions, and other meeting associated with this process. I want this to happen, but I am upset, discouraged, and frankly embarrassed at the way this is being handled and done. We do not have a voice, and if we do, it is being muffled by those whose say they are trying to put a plan together. I hope that for the sake of Kansas City Light Rail that this committee is around a long time. I believe we can accomplish a lot, but we must be willing to do it ourselves, and not rely on the government to do it for us. The sad part is, that is exactly what we have to do.

I would like to propose that we figure out the purpose of light rail in Kansas City before we move on. Then, we need to come up with a regional idea. Not wait for other cities to jump in and support, but draw lines on a map if needed. We need to present a regional solution to the federal government for the federal funding, the first phase being the “starter line.” We need to let the city council, the ATA, and who ever else needs to know, that by not putting both taxes on the same ballot, they are damaging the chances that we’ll ever get light rail in Kansas City. Lastly, we need more citizen leadership from this group, rather than to be consultant guided. I know that together, we can make this happen.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred C. Buckley III, Kevin Klinkenberg, Derek Ramsay, Airick Leonard West, Chris Sally, and Heidi Pollmann

Breaking up is hard to do

2008-01-24T08:37:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Another Kansas City School District Superintendent has come and gone. The revolving door continues and it's now time to bring in the next administrator for his or her 18 month stint. When does it end?

One of the hardest things to do is solve a problem when you're too close, or have too much invested in the outcome. The powers that be on the KCMSD School Board and their political allies (accomplices?) have no motivation in making any real change. Any person who would come in and effect radical changes to the school district would usurp the board's power and considering their positions don't come with a salary, power is all they have.

So we have an out of control school board running an out of control, unaccredited school district. What are we to do? How do we fix the schools? This was a question asked repeatedly at campaign forums during the city council race. What I really wanted to do was answer that questioner with the question "When are you going to stop electing fools to the school board?"

Common sense dictates when a job is too big, you break it up into smaller more manageable parts and begin to work on them individually. With 47 elementary schools and 7 high schools scattered across miles of different neighborhoods with miles of different needs, I think it's time to explore breaking the district into smaller, more manageable parts. One or two high schools per district, and dedicated feeder schools. Let each small district have its own board, preferably made up with a certain percentage of parents. Smaller districts, leadership with a stake in its success and the ability to adapt change quickly - instead of the current system of political cronyism, infighting and blanket policies that benefit the policymakers instead of the students.

It won't be easy. In fact, it will be downright impossible without intervention from the courts or the State of Missouri. Hopefully our lawmakers from Jefferson City will be willing to step in and help the KCMSD help itself. Or we can just keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Maybe that should be the new district motto.

Bring sanity to the petition process

2008-01-17T10:51:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

No form of government puts more responsibility on its citizens than a democracy. We are supposed to remain informed, vote intelligently and provide feedback to our elected representatives so that they can more accurately reflect our wants and needs. Kansas City has an identity crisis when it comes to our brand of democracy. On one hand we have a council-manager system which turns over City operations to an unelected individual. At the other extreme we have a petition process written in our charter that allows anyone, even a non-resident to interject themselves into our government by obtaining a few signatures.

Because of our poorly conceived petition ordinance, the operations of our city can be severely compromised by anybody with a chip on their shoulder and a clipboard in their hand. Witness the recent machinations of a few individuals calling themselves "Save the Bannister Mall Group Inc." By exploiting an obscure line-item in the City charter they gathered the required 100 registered voter signatures to force a halt to the enactment of the Bannister Mall redevelopment project. They have until January 22nd to submit 8,475 valid signatures to force the issue to a referendum. Granted it's only a temporary halt to the inevitable. Having gathered a few signatures myself, I'm pretty confident in stating that four people won't be able to gather over 8000 signatures in 10 days. Really all they've done is get their names in the paper and their faces on television which appears to be all they really wanted in the first place. But is it really sound policy that 100 signatures can put a 10 day halt on any ordinance? That leaves an awfully huge opportunity for fraud in my opinion. What's to keep anyone from ratholing a hundred signatures for whatever suits their purpose?

We're all painfully aware of the other petition problem. When not trying to put a temporary stay on an ordinance, a petitioner has as long as they want to gather enough signatures to put something on the ballot. And once again, the actual petitioner doesn't even have to be a resident. You can be a... oh I don't know... you could be an unemployable lawn boy from Virginia who has nothing better to do than stand outside grocery stores for a few months. 5% of the amount of people who voted in the last mayoral election is a lot of signatures but spread out over weeks and months it becomes academic. When one person with too much time on their hands can alter the course of our city, we have a problem.

Instead of employing their charter powers of rescinding petition initiatives and allowing themselves to be held hostage for ten days at any given point, perhaps it's time for the City Council to revisit our charter and change the way in which our petition system works. I've always maintained the City Charter should be a living document, and we as citizens should be constantly crafting it to improve its performance. Simple changes like residency requirements for the petitioners, time limits and a higher amount of signatures required for a temporary stay of an ordinance would be welcome changes. Or maybe they wouldn't... We should let the voters decide! Hmmmm. Maybe I'll start a petition...

What are these guys smoking?

2008-01-09T14:31:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Emotions run high whenever government tries to restrict what some perceive to be personal freedoms. In the case of smoking we're talking about modifying freedoms that have existed since... Well, since forever. Change is never easy and I have met many people who view the restriction of their right to smoke in public to be on par with taking away their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Passionate arguments are made on both sides. I for one do not think that smoking restrictions presage the fall of western civilization, but that's just my opinion. It's easy for me to be cavalier because I don't own a business that caters to smokers and I don't feel that if I gamble or attend a Chiefs game I can only do so with a cigarette in my hand.

A group of five petitioners have gathered enough signatures and submitted a smoking ban ordinance to be put before a public vote. I don't have a problem with this since I personally support a smoking ban across the board. What I do have a problem with is the petitioners' exclusion of casinos and the Truman Sports Complex. If you're going to be fair, do it all the way or don't do it at all. I expect this kind of weasily behavior from politicos, but I thought these petitioners were just average citizens? That's the line I keep hearing anyway.

When questioned about the exclusion, one of the petitioners argued that "there are only a few casinos in the metro area, and banning smoking from Kansas City’s two casinos could really hurt them relative to the other casinos in Riverside and North Kansas City." (source) Fine for casinos but what about the bars and restaurants? And tell me against whom is the Truman Sports Complex competing? The other stadium in Missouri? Last time I checked you can't smoke at Busch Stadium either.

What message is the petitioning committee trying to send? It's okay to put small business owners at a perceived "competitive disadvantage" but not the deep pockets of a couple of casinos and a stadium complex? Is this petitioning committee of regular citizens really for public health or just public health when it's convenient or financially expedient? The petitioners' arguments may be disingenuous, but at least they're steadfast about them. In a letter to the City Council, the petitioners have stated firmly that they will not accept any amendments. This is their right by charter of course, but what master are they serving by being so obstinate? Certainly not the regular citizens.

So what's really behind the exclusion? Word on the street is that a casino representative met with one of the petitioners and let it be known that the casinos would fund a huge opposition campaign if the petitioners did not provide an exemption for gaming floors. In public testimony Councilman Ed Ford brought up the poignant fact that one of the petitioners is employed by the Truman Sports Complex and implied that therein lies the root of that exemption. Interesting.

So we're led to conclude that as far as the petitioners are concerned the public health is of utmost importance... except in cases where the businesses affected have deep pockets, or sign your paycheck. Nice.

All arguments aside, little bergs like San Francisco and New York City have managed to survive after passing smoking bans. With that kind of empirical data I would have to admit that I would vote in favor of a smoking ban. Just not this one.

Who's in charge of this train wreck?

2008-01-07T13:19:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Wayne Cauthen has one foot out the door of City Hall. It's the worst kept secret in Kansas City that his "vacation" is time off while he goes through final interviews for the Austin City Manager position. I don't fault him for pursuing other opportunities. No person in their right mind would want to stay in an organization openly feuding over your employment status.

I do take note that "the chickens have come home to roost" to our leadership. In a complete lack of regard for their constituents, the City Council chose to blindly lash out at Mayor Funkhouser in what can only be described as childish retribution. What have their actions garnered us? While the kneejerk nine gained some momentary praise from Cauthen's avid supporters, they also created a lawsuit regarding the legality of their actions which will no doubt cost thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds. Think about that the next time your elected officials bemoan budget cuts and their effect on basic city services. Plenty of money to hire lawyers, but no money to clear the snow? Only now are they possibly realizing that they've turned over the helm of operations to a man who is openly trying to find work anywhere but here.

In the latest development of our little mini-series, Wayne Cauthen has turned over his responsibilities to LaTrisha Underhill until January 10th. For those of you scoring at home, Ms. Underhill has resigned effective January 11th under what can at best be described as controversial circumstances. What kind of message is Mr. Cauthen trying to send? To every hard working City employee who hopes to one day better themselves and rise through the ranks, the City Manager has told them they don't even rate a close second to a lame duck employee who is probably spending more time packing her things than running the City. Once again Mr. Cauthen has proven that real leadership is not a shot in his bag. Or maybe he's just lashing out one last time before he heads to warmer climes.

There's plenty of criticism to go around in this slowly unfolding train wreck at City Hall. There's the mayor's missteps, the council's reaction, the melodrama of the Cauthen supporters and the puzzling behavior of the City Manager himself.

Is there not one rational voice at City Hall?

Incentives should require signoff

2007-12-20T09:13:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

We've read the stories so many times it fails to register with even the most ardent economic incentive critics. Some small to medium firm receives tax breaks to move from an adjoining municipality like Lenexa or Independence and Kansas City claims "economic development" or "new jobs."

It's a wonderful game... if you're one of the companies playing neighboring communities against each other. The business avoids paying property taxes for 10 to 25 years, and since they rarely move more than 20 miles it can retain the majority of its employees. The only thing that really changes is the employees' commute.

It would seem with embattled Mayor Funkhouser going around trying to sell a regional light rail plan he would receive a warmer reception if he had something to offer. It doesn't make sense to have conversations about regional cooperation for transit when the attitude towards economic development is anything but. Why not come bearing a pledge? A pledge of a non-compete clause in our supposed Economic Development Policy.

I see it working like this. A company grows tired of their current location in Lenexa. Their tax-abated building is about to go back on the roles at full rate, and coincidentally they've managed to "outgrow" their surroundings and need a different facility. Funny how these realizations always seem to happen right about the time taxes need to be paid. The company determines that maybe they should relocate to one of Kansas City's many URD (Urban Redevelopment District) zones where they can receive generous Chapter 353 tax abatements and perhaps some TIF. Here's where the non-compete clause kicks in. Why not make it policy that Lenexa's city council has to approve the deal?

It would seem that if everything is above board, if every incentive being offered is necessary and all parties are bargaining in good faith there should be no problem with all parties involved approving the deal. By "all parties" that includes the municipality that supposedly can no longer contain the growing company. After all, we are OneKC. Aren't we?

City Manager: A different perspective

2007-12-12T08:57:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

The most talked about topic for the last 48 hours has been the apparent firing of City Manager Wayne Cauthen. I say apparent because by charter all the mayor can really do is refuse to introduce an ordinance renewing Cauthen's contract. If the City Manager so chooses he can continue to work without a contract at his current pay rate and serve at the pleasure of the City Council. He cannot be fired without a majority vote, so as long as seven council people are happy with his performance, he stays.

You'll get no argument from me that Mayor Funkhouser handled this poorly. His actions following his memo have also been ill-advised. At the minimum he should have given the council advance notice of his memo if only so they wouldn't be blindsided by the press or constituents asking for information. There is no question that the relationship between the mayor and the city council has become completely dysfunctional and may be irretrievably damaged.

What strikes me as odd is that in all the hand-wringing and "I want to be mayor" posturing of certain City Council members, the indignant outrage of segments in the business community, and the predictable reactions from partisan hacks, one group of very important people has been ignored. The City employees. How do the people that work under the leadership of Wayne Cauthen feel about it? Granted nobody receiving a paycheck from the City is going to go on record in support or opposition of the City Manager, but surely the media has one or two anonymous sources within City Hall who will gladly give their opinion.

A City Manager should be much more than a task master who gets the job done at any cost. Not when that cost is at the expense of the good people working for you. I have heard numerous firsthand accounts of Wayne Cauthen's managerial style that have caused me great concern. Tirades, unreasonable requests, favoritism and an atmosphere of intimidation are all common knowledge at City Hall. I'm willing to concede that perhaps my sampling is not accurate. Maybe I have only come in contact with a minority segment that has some sort of ax to grind with the City Manager, but I doubt it. I know a lot of people at 414 E 12th Street. The fact is I haven't heard one account of how wonderful it is working for the current city manager.

The future of the Wayne Cauthen rests in the hands and aspirations of the City Council. Politicians live for this kind of grandstanding opportunity. Over the next few weeks and months there will be a veritable orgy of quotes, stunts, press conferences, breathless orations in council chambers and behind the scenes maneuvering. Some will use this latest mayoral blunder as a springboard for their own mayoral run. Or at least a way to rally support for their re-election. Beats doing real work I guess.

I have no idea who the City Manager will be 12 months from now. My only hope is that somewhere along the way the Council will take the time to consider that leadership, employee motivation and a healthy work environment are traits worthy of just as much weight as making the trains run on time. You can command people and they will respond. But if you lead people, they will excel.

Keep On Truckin?

2007-12-06T00:40:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

Reported months ago by The Pitch, Kansas City has purchased the midwest's first EV (Electric Vehicle) to be put into full-time service for a municipality. Our own ZAP! truck can be seen running errands around the water treatment plant. Not to be outdone, UPS has gotten in on the act announcing a lease deal of 42 ZAP! cars and trucks for delivery service in and around Petaluma, California.

While I kid about UPS following the lead of Kansas City, the article on CNNMoney.com does bring up an intriguing concept. "UPS is setting up strategic distribution nodes where vans can transfer packages to the ZAP Xebras for final delivery in smaller communities, neighborhoods and downtown areas where larger delivery vans are less efficient and have a more difficult time navigating or parking." [Source CNNMoney.com "Brown Goes Green"] How many times in Kansas City have you seen an 18-wheeler blocking traffic while awkwardly trying to negotiate a small entrance? For that matter how many times have you seen a large truck forgoing the driveways and alleyways altogether in favor of just stopping anywhere to make a delivery?

It doesn't take a transportation engineer to understand that large trucks are not efficient in dense urban areas. While in London last spring I was struck by the complete absence of large "lorries" in the urban core. Everywhere you looked the day to day commerce was being performed by service vehicles no larger than an American minivan. Even the firetrucks were small, opting for a quick and nimble Mercedes firetruck about 2/3 the size of the trucks we are used to seeing in the US.

So why has UPS made the move to electric vehicles (EV's)? If we're to believe officials from ZAP! it's because of logistic advantages as well as cost savings of smaller, electric vehicles. But if that's the case, then why isn't UPS employing this strategy across North America instead of just Petaluma? The answer is indeed for economic reasons, just not the ones ZAP! is touting. California has the most aggressive environmental policies in the country. With each passing year the golden state's rules on carbon emissions become more strict, and its municipalities are getting in on the act as well by tightening regulations even further then state mandates. UPS is simply positioning itself for the inevitable, and by doing so is gaining a competitive advantage. Once regulations reach a point where EV's are mandated, UPS will be at a competitive advantage already having the infrastructure in place for a regional delivery system.

Kansas City should become more aggressive with restricting large commercial vehicle traffic in certain areas. The net positive effects would be less wear and tear on streets not designed to handle 70,000 lb vehicles, less interruption of traffic flow by not having 18 wheel trucks attempting to maneuver in standard streets and perhaps a gentle nudge to corporations to become better environmental citizens by using smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles to do the job.

The No-TIF District

2007-11-28T08:10:00.000-06:00

By Mark Forsythe
The Kansas City Post

It seems there isn't a week that goes by in Kansas City without some sort of announcement about tax incentives being asked for or awarded. Whether it be a small tax credit to move the nomadic NAIA headquarters from downtown; to Tulsa; to Olathe and back to downtown, a 353 Tax Abatement to reward a politically active local electrical contractor, or the usual TIF plans for building more "public" parking structures there is no end to the public subsidy gravy train.

So much time and energy is expended creating, expanding and modifying TIF Districts. Check the docket of any weekly council meeting and you'll most likely see the words "amended" and "TIF district" in the same ordinance. An economic development tool that was meant to revitalize has actually created a new welfare state. TIF Districts tend to grow and multiply rather then retire quietly. Have you ever heard of a TIF district being eliminated or at least reduced?

Why can't we create no-TIF Districts? It seems to me it might save some time if we red-lined some places on the map and told developers they're definitely on their own in these areas. It doesn't take the charade of an Economic Development Task Force to understand what areas of Kansas City do not need to be incentivized.

Why is it that any Kansas Citian with a pulse will shake their head in disgust at the prospect of TIF incentives on the Country Club Plaza, or greenfields in the northland yet the incentive party continues ahem... unabated? The answer, in my opinion, is simple economics. You, the average Kansas Citian do not write large checks to political campaigns. Developers, their attorneys, construction companies, contractors, and unions do. The organizations that benefit the most from the actual construction activities are the ones controlling the lifeblood of our politicians. Money. These groups have your elected officials' cellphones on speed dial. You don't.

It would seem the mayor and council could go a long way towards restoring public faith in our economic development policies by declaring a moratorium on tax incentives in just one area of Kansas City. I recommend starting with the Plaza, but there are other areas that would qualify. Sure there will be much wailing and hand-wringing from the developers, and maybe even a threat or two about withholding campaign dollars, but in the end even they will realize that it's a level playing field and there is plenty of opportunity to go around.

Passenger Rail: The Northern Flyer Alliance

2007-11-26T09:24:00.000-06:00

By Mark Corriston
Kansas City Director
Northern Flyer Alliance

Everyone has an opinion regarding rail travel. Most people express strong enthusiasm, commenting that they desire trains similar to what operates today in Europe and Japan. When these people open to deeper beliefs the issues and opinions take on interesting twists; quite often reflecting assumptions that are repeated from coast-to-coast. John Q. Public often states: “Train travel is more viable on the coasts. We need bullet trains to cut travel times.” Opinions about High Speed Rail typically follow. Further discussion drifts to ever more specific issues including airline-rail line comparisons, costs, and ridership considerations.

Understanding of passenger rail service has seemingly vaporized over the past 37 years since Amtrak ran its first passenger trains. This is especially true in Kansas City where only four daily passenger trains currently operate from Union Station.

Quite a few organizations are promoting passenger rail expansion in the Kansas City area and nationwide. A recent article in Parade magazine clearly revealed where this is happening; revealing how much public support is emerging for an intercity passenger rail rebirth. Yet, this strong public referendum, as revealed in Parade’s on-line poll (97% in favor of increasing government funding for trains), seems to have little impact upon elected officials.

A collective belief is growing nationwide that energy costs, affecting everything from food to transportation, will only grow. The energy crisis facing the nation will not be solved through singular improvements in fuel efficient personal transportation or alternate fuel technology. We are on the cusp of a paradigm change in how America travels and will be unable to continue along the path of highway expansion behind the curve of traffic congestion. This will require leadership not seen in today’s average politician.

Many are awakening to the fact it was a mistake for the United States to turn its back and abandon its passenger rail services. Highways improvements have not improved connectivity for all American cities. Transportation planners now are actually bypassing many communities in the name of speed. This hastens rural decline but does not hide the effects. Fringe development, along the bypass highways promotes the transport of goods, but spells doom for the community. Major highways now only connect major cities, which are also connected by the major airlines.

Airlines and highways provide critical supports for transportation. However, in Europe, as should be in America, a third transportation foundation exists. For the moving of freight it already exists on rails as well as highways. Expansion of passenger rail service is important and can be done at a fraction of the cost of other transportation development.

The Northern Flyer Alliance is a political action association providing a communication conduit and a call to action for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas communities. Our mission is to reconnect communities and major cities along an uninterrupted intercity rail transportation corridor from Illinois to Texas through Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. The State of Kansas holds the key to this expansion through a repurposing of the rail corridor between Newton, Kansas through Wichita and south to Oklahoma City

The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill that can provide major funding increases for Amtrak, including provisions for intercity passenger service compacts between states. Kansas and Oklahoma are in a perfect position to share in up to an 80% federal match for the cost of corridor development mentioned above. For Kansas this translates into an estimated $8 million dollar requirement, of which $6 million would originate from the federal match. Ridership is projected in the neighborhood of 75,000 the first year likely higher based on similar routes that have developed in recent years.

On Saturday, December 8th from 10:30-noon, the Northern Flyer Alliance will hold an open public meeting in the Jarvis Hunt room in Kansas City Union Station. This convocation and discussion will include representatives from regional rail advocacy coalitions whose efforts are supported by the NFA. All are welcome to attend, listen, learn, and share ideas that support our passenger rail expansion initiative.