Tax Abatement: Too Little Too Soon?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post How can you tell when your economic development policies are adequate? How much tax abatement is too much? How little is too little? Too little is easy to figure out. The development doesn't happen. The Planned Industrial Expansion Authority (PIEA) is one of those little known pseudo-governmental bodies that recommends tax abatements on a project by project basis. The maximum amount of "relief" they can recommend is 100% property tax abatement for 10 years and then 50% abatement for another 15 years. Usually this abatement is on the improved value, or increment as it is known. Consider you have a building appraised by the county at $100,000. You would continue to pay the property taxes on that $100,000 value regardless of what improvements you make. The development could end up being worth millions of dollars but the tax bill will still be assessed at the original $100,000 rate. Recently some big news was made as the PIEA actually denied a developer the standard maximum abatement. Developer Andrew Haden was given abated taxes on improvements at 2109 Broadway for 10 years. He had applied for the standard full 25 years but was denied on the basis that the Crossroads Arts District is now a desirable place to develop so it doesn't need as much incentive. Haden told the PIEA's board its decision "would put him at a disadvantage compared with other Crossroads condos that carry 25-year abatements." Really? Then why bother? Better to cut your losses now rather than pursue a poor project. So to my original question, do we know if we've given too little? I guess we haven't. "Haden will proceed with an $8.1 million conversion of the 95-year-old building he bought in 2005. Haden expects to deliver 34 units priced at $200,000 to $500,000 in early 2008." I don't know Mr. Haden, but if he's a shrewd businessman he's going to put a couple of bucks in his pocket at the end of the day. Had he really "needed" that extra 15 years at 50%, he would have had to have walked away from the deal. Nobody is going to start a project that loses money. But the development is going forward and we as a community know we saved ourselves 15 years of tax revenue. Of course this raises an even more pressing question. How many developments are out there right now receiving tax breaks they really don't need?

Kansas City Must Toughen Its Property Code Laws

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post When it comes to property ownership, everybody's a Libertarian. It's a uniquely American trait that we feel owning a house is no different than owning any other piece of chattel. People seem to take the attitude that "it's my house and I'll do whatever I want with it." True to a point, but where do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual? Where does your right to "do whatever you want" end out of respect for your neighbors' rights? What can, or should be done when a house is allowed to deteriorate to such a point that it becomes a problem for the rest of the neighborhood? Is it the right of the owner to allow the property to reach such a state that that it literally begins to fall in on itself? Is it the right of the property owner to drag down the property value of his neighbors? I've seen homes being lived in that have missing windows and pigeons flying in and out. One person's eccentric neighbor is another's nuisance. Property rights is a sticky subject, one that politicians are loathe to address. As the laws work in Kansas City, a property owner can be cited for property code violations and mandated to remedy the problems. Of course anyone who has ever gone to bat for the neighborhood against a habitual violator will tell you, the laws have no teeth and it's easy for a property owner to continually avoid bringing their property up to code. Case after case goes through Housing Court with little or no results achieved. For the most part, neighbors have little recourse if one individual chooses to "do whatever they want" with their property. Kansas City has to toughen its laws. There needs to be real remedies to alleviate the systematic destruction of our housing stock. I'm not worried about peeling paint or the occasional noxious weed. I'm talking about once beautiful houses allowed to deteriorate to a point they become dangerous and uninhabitable and must eventually be torn down. The first step is to attach all property code fines to the property tax bill. This eliminates some owners' ability to not pay the fines and ignore the eventual bench warrants issued for their arrest. They may still be able to avoid arrest, but they have to pay their property taxes. The second step is to remove the three year amnesty period for paying property taxes once a code violation fine has been assessed. Right now the game played by some irresponsible property owners is to stay days ahead of the three year law. If a property owner allows their taxes to go more than three years without paying, the property is seized by the county and sold on the courthouse steps. This three year grace period should not apply to people who are allowing their property to deteriorate to an unusable state. Finally, the city should re-establish the building re-use program. Years ago we had an individual employed by the city whose job it was to find new owners for dilapidated properties. In some cases a property owner doesn't want to own the structure, can't find a buyer, but just can't bring themselves to let it go to the county for free. That's where the city stepped in and found the rare individual who would pay a fair price and bring the property back from the dead. With these three small changes, I believe we can alleviate the loss of some of our historic housing stock as well as put properties in the hands of people who actually want to own them. All without repossession, courthouse auctions and criminal proceedings.

What Is "Hybrid-Drive" Anyway?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post I've been using the phrase "hybrid-drive" figuring anybody that hasn't lived in a cave for the last five years has at least seen a Toyota Prius or Ford Escape Hybrid and developed a small understanding of the technology. Apparently that is not the case. While pitching my idea of Ultra Light Rail, I'm finding some community leaders don't understand what hybrid-drive actually is. So today I decided to forgo a preachy editorial and give a little primer on hybrid-drive. Simply defined, hybrid-drive uses a combination of an internal combustion engine and electric motors to propel a vehicle. This is hardly new. Railroad locomotives have essentially been hybrid-drive for years. The railroad hybrid-drive system is not for fuel economy or environmental friendliness. It's for reliability. Electric motors are extremely efficient, generate massive amounts of torque (that's the pulling power that pickup commercials are always talking about) and don't require a transmission. Can you imagine what the maintenance would be on a railroad locomotive if it had a transmission like an automobile? So the diesel engine drives an electric generator which in turn provides current to the electric motors that drive the wheels. Simple, powerful and reliable. With me so far? Somewhere along the way, engineers figured out that the diesel engines in buses worked the hardest, and produced the most pollution when the vehicle was accelerating from a standstill. If only there were some way to power the electric motors during that time without using the internal combustion engine. Hmmmm. How about a battery? Battery technology hadn't come far enough along to drive a railroad locomotive, but it could certainly propel a bus. When pulling away from a stop, a bus uses its banked battery power to drive the electric motors. Once the bus gets rolling, the diesel engine takes back over and also recharges the batteries. Once again, this system wasn't really pursued for environmental reasons, but it was marketed that way. The real impetus was for reliability. It's easier and much cheaper to swap out a simple electric motor than it is a complicated transmission. Now enter the automotive sector. Looking for ways to up their fleet average MPG and appease the growing environmental concerns, the car makers sized this bus technology down even further and added a new twist. Regenerative braking. Fancy term, but anybody who has ever driven a standard transmission car and down shifted to slow the vehicle understands the concept. All that drag and energy in slowing a vehicle could be recaptured and used to charge the batteries. As little energy as possible goes to waste. That's the hybrid-drive system you see on the road today. Interestingly enough, the concept trickled down from giant locomotives, to buses, to automobiles. Now the concept of regenerative braking is trickling back up and most new hybrid-drive systems for buses have the same form of energy recapturing that your run-of-the-mill Ford Escape Hybrid has. So buses run cleaner, are cheaper to maintain and are more reliable. New technology? Hardly. Just a new marketing spin on an old idea. Hopefully this clears things up a bit. Maybe? Clear as mud? Go ahead and ask questions if you like. I'll answer what I can!

Kansas City is the regional alternative fuels leader

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post From time to time, (okay all the time) I use this venue to promote creative partnerships. Government and academia. Government and private industry. As with most creative ideas, the concept gets lost by the "that's the way we've always done it" crowd. Meanwhile, at the KCMO Water Department garage at 20th & Brooklyn, a true visionary is actually utilizing these radical concepts to save the city money, lessen our impact on the environment and help advance research for alternative energy. Sam Swearngin is the central fleet superintendent and creative mastermind behind Kansas City's Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicle program. Sam is an expert at finding obscure federal grants to put cleaner city vehicles on the road. Even the garage itself is heated by recaptured waste oil; the result of what else? A federal grant obtained by Sam. The local media has largely ignored that a very important project is underway right now that could have even more clean vehicles on the road. The University of Missouri is leading the way in research on gas storage in solid material. Along with Midwest Research Institute (MRI) they have developed a platform that stores natural gas in carbon "hockey pucks." I won't go into the science, but gas can be store much more effectively in carbon-based nanotubes allowing much smaller "tanks" and much lower pressures. This same technology can, and most likely will be applied to hydrogen also. And how clean is CNG? "If you put a vehicle like this on the road in Houston, it would actually clean the air" says Sam. Houston has its pollution problems, but you have to admit when the exhaust coming out the tailpipe is better than the air going in the carburetor, that's pretty clean! So MU had a grant, and MRI was helping out, but the grant money did not extend to the purchase of a vehicle to test the system in real world application. Enter the Kansas City Water Department and the Kansas City Environmental Department. We happen to have a few vehicles that get driven quite a bit. We also have the region's largest CNG fueling facility. The result? Mizzou provided the space age ANG tube testbed. MRI bucked up for the snazzy bed cover and the City is doing what we were going to do anyway; drive the truck. Of course Sam knows he's preaching to the choir when he tells me about these collaborations. Apparently this isn't the first time such programs have gone wanting for a vehicle to test new technologies in. As I was leaving, I told Sam "If only there was a city that had a transit system made up of vehicles that could easily be retrofitted with systems like clean burning CNG. A high profile, (perhaps rail?) system that would really put test systems through their paces. Starting, stopping, running in all kinds of weather. I would love to provide vehicles like that to all these governmental agencies with money burning a hole in their pockets." Hmmm. If only...

Solar Sanitation Smashingly Successful

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Taking a little break today from transit. Based on my hit counter I have everyone's attention so why not use the opportunity for a little environmental activism? Meet Big Belly. He's a $4500.00 solar-powered trash compactor. Pricey yes, but the benefits are long-term and not all things good are necessarily quantifiable. If you read the Post on a regular basis you know I'm a big advocate for clean energy. Solar seems to be generating the most excitement right now with Dot Com 2.0 erupting in Silicon Valley based on the venture capital dollars propping up any company with the word "solar" in its name. Culture shifts and changes in paradigms are the hardest to achieve. Even the biggest optimist wouldn't predict Kansas Citians will be rushing out to install solar systems on their rooftops any time soon. The key is gradual change. Education. Growing up with it. This next generation will not know a time when there wasn't curbside recycling. Why not also influence them by having them grow up in a time where solar powered lighting at bus stops, and yes even solar powered trash cans are the norm? It's not like there aren't tangible benefits to public trash compactors. They have to be emptied far less frequently, and when they do, the attendant need only remove a 40 lb brick of compacted refuse. Quick, simple and ready for the landfill. This also isn't a radical idea. Several cities have already installed the BigBelly including New York, Baltimore, Boston and San Diego. Maybe this year a neighborhood will submit a PIAC application for on of these guys in their park. Better still, perhaps our elected officials can get creative and find some grant dollars to have one or two of these put outside City Hall? We have to start somewhere.

Seattle Going Green with GM Hybrid-Powered Buses

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post In my previous article, some commenters questioned the viability of hybrid-drive. Some implied it is unproven or without precedent in a transit environment. As if on queue, today this little gem flashed across my news feed: Seattle, Washington [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Seattle's municipal area, King County, was awarded a contract for the purchase of up to 500 articulated buses, most of which will be powered by General Motors' 2-mode hybrid system. The five-year contract, which could be worth $400 million, is between King County and bus-manufacturer New Flyer Industries. General Motors supplies New Flyer with the hybrid system for the buses. King County has been operating a fleet of 214 GM hybrid-powered buses since 2004 and, with the addition of this contract, King County could have a total of 714 buses. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) one-year comparative study of King County's hybrid buses endorses GM's 2-mode hybrid propulsion system. The full study can be found here but be warned. It's lengthy, technical and there aren't any pretty pictures. Better to wait for a night you're having trouble getting to sleep before tackling it. The really interesting thing to me is the involvement of the NREL. You know what that means? Grants! As a city we already get grants for our Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles that the Water Department runs. It's not inconceivable that we could get a little grant money to offset the cost of our ULRVs because we're using "green" technology.

What will run on the rails? Part IV

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Only routes in very dense cities with limited parking can justify the high capital cost and passenger capacity of traditional LRT. Kansas City does not meet either of those requirements. Our population is not dense, and there is ample parking in our urban core. Whenever the conversation about light rail comes up, the most talked about issue is cost. The cost per mile of fifty, sixty, even seventy million dollars is a difficult project to undertake for even the wealthiest of communities. I made my analysis with several constraints. That's what we geeky engineer-types do. We design within constraints. My self-imposed constraints were cost, route, aesthetics, minimal infrastructure and low environmental impact. Of course these constraints led me to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) but I also chose to honor what I feel was the intent of the voters when they passed our current plan. The voters wanted rail. Fair enough. So I added rail to my constraints. For aesthetics, it is purely my opinion that overhead catenaries are not desirable, so that eliminated traditional LRT like Denver and Minneapolis. Surface transit cannot have a third rail providing power unless it's in a dedicated transitway unaccessible to pedestrians. Not my idea of an attractive urban transit system so that leaves that out. The fabled "new ground level power supply system" from the ballot proposition? Not practical or affordable. With no wires and no third rail, that left me self-propelled options. Part I and Part III are both self-propelled. The Colorado DMU is not practical. The diesel-powered light rail has potential but it's not very environmentally friendly. That left me with today's proposal. Ultra Light Rail (ULR). The first ULR system to run that I could find began at Bristol in the late nineties. The 35 passenger tram used a flywheel from a 70 volt DC supply picked up from a short stretch of third rail situated at two stops. The extremely popular service ran for two years and carried some 50,000 fare-paying passengers. That technology has morphed into a hybrid-drive system using off the shelf components borrowed from the automotive industry such as high efficiency diesel or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) engines and sophisticated battery banks. Advantages: - Low emission hybrid drive. Zero emission if plug-in EV technology is utilized - Lighter weight, low cost vehicles. The picture to the left is a ULR running on a wooden ocean pier - Rails can be laid over existing streets and there is no need for ground-level conductors or overhead catenaries. - Capacity up to 50 passengers per car - Single or dual car configuration available - Potential for onboard auxiliaries to be powered by roof mounted solar panels - Potential system cost less than 10% of conventional LRT - Easily retrofitted when new technologies appear Disadvantages: - New technology. First adopters assume significant risk of unforeseen problems - Very few commercial installations up and running. Southport ULR in the UK is the longest running but it is an all-electric plug-in EV - European companies are only just now beginning to develop manufacturing relationships in the United States - Smaller than LRT. Typical ULRVs carry around 70-100 passengers at one time meaning more vehicles will have to run more frequently during periods of high demand Conclusion: Kansas City has an opportunity to step forward and lead the way for 21st Century transit. Sometimes the most expensive option is not the best. In this case I believe ULR to be not only the lowest cost option, but the best option. Modern, low impact, scalable to ridership demands and completely customizable for our needs. I know it is a Kansas City tradition to enumerate all the reasons "we can't" instead of asking "why not?" So let the "why we can't" group begin here in the Comments section. For the rest of us, let's look forward to the 21st Century instead of re-living the 19th.

What will run on the rails? Part III

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post A growing trend in North America is the use of self-propelled light railway cars. Similar in size and scale to electric light rail vehicles (LRVs), these trains are powered by internal combustion engines rather than external electric power lines. New Jersey Transit's RiverLine light railway, connecting Camden and Trenton, was the first such venture in the United States. San Diego's North County Transit District has a 22-mile route (called the Sprinter) under construction, and Austin, Texas has launched its own 32-mile light railway project (called Capital MetroRail). Harrisburg (Pa) is planning a similar fuel-powered light railway; others are under consideration in Madison (Wi) and Spokane. Advantages: - Self-propelled. No need for catenaries or ground-level power supplies. The overall cost of such a system would be less than half of a traditional light rail configuration. - Low-floor, articulated diesel multiple unit (DMU) light rail cars look and function like traditional LRVs. They are modern, ADA compliant and the Austin vehicles will even feature free Wi-Fi. - Proven technology. Diesel engines are similar to those which power a standard bus. - Combines dedicated LRT median running and streetcar-like operation in mixed traffic. - Platform could be easily modified to a diesel-electric hybrid configuration. As new technology becomes available (hydrogen fuel cells, super capacitors) these vehicles could be retrofitted to accommodate them. - Several manufacturers and communities have experience with this type of vehicle. Disadvantages: - Not really intended for full-time duty as a streetcar. More of a short distance commuter rail vehicle. - Current diesel engine configurations are slightly louder than a bus (I've seen and heard one in London's Paddington Station). - Still heavy enough to require significant track infrastructure for weight bearing issues. - It's essentially a scaled-down commuter train which may meet with resistance from the public. Conclusion: If a configuration of a very small compressed natural gas (CNG) engine and lithium ion battery banks could be installed, this could be the most viable option for Kansas City. A plug-in hybrid configuration in this type of vehicle would provide the necessary elements of minimal noise and pollution as well as ease of maintenance. I feel using a self-propelled configuration is necessary to allow Kansas City to move forward on laying track without the constraints of "new ground-level power supply technology" or overhead catenaries. The technology exists, it just hasn't been requested of the manufacturers yet. Tommorow's option is my final(?) installment. I'll also be introducing a new term to Kansas City's discussion of LRT, LRV, BRT etc.

What Will Run On The Rails? Part II

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post The picture to the right is what most people envision when we talk about light rail. This particular LRV (Light Rail Vehicle) is the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis. Manufactured by Canadian company Bombardier these vehicles depend on overhead wires known as catenaries to provide current for the onboard electric motors. This configuration is the preferred method of surface inter-urban rail transit in North America. The last few systems built have shared this configuration. Minneapolis, Denver and Phoenix are just a few of the latest cities to join the light rail club. Is Kansas City on its way to joining the LRT fraternity? Here I'll weigh some advantages and disadvantages of a traditional LRV. Advantages: - Clean, relatively quiet and zero-emissions - Foreign manufacturers like Bombardier (Canada) and Siemens (Germany) maintain assembly plants in the United States so LRVs can qualify for federal funded programs that require using domestic manufacturers - Proven technology. Catenary electric systems have been around for over 100 years - Attractive. Do not underestimate the "gee whiz" factor. Experienced transit planners admit that in order to lure riders an LRV must evoke emotional responses of "I need to get on that thing. It looks cool!" - It's familiar. Voters and bureaucrats typically shy away from new technology. This vehicle has gained wide acceptance and will not meet with resistance from the community. Disadvantages: - It may be called 'light' rail but it's actually very heavy. Considerable infrastructure must be installed under the streets to disperse the weight. Additional reinforcement of the proposed crossing on the Heart of America Bridge may also be required. - The overhead catenaries are unsightly, create right-of-way issues and can present a safety hazard albeit a minimal one. - It's expensive. Of all the options, the LRVs are the most expensive vehicles. Coupled with the infrastructure required including the reinforced roadbed and overhead electrical system, this configuration is cost prohibitive for Kansas City without significant federal assistance. - It's implementation will take the longest. Spokespeople for the FTA say the average time that elapses from study to laying track is four to twelve years. And that's only if funding is available and no unforeseen issues arise. - It's 19th Century technology. It may look cool, but the concept of high voltage and large amperage delivered via steel cables is not exactly cutting edge. Conclusion: The traditional LRV does not lend itself to the constraints of implementing a light rail system in Kansas City. In my opinion the variables of funding, infrastructure issues and the return of catenaries is not desirable. There are other options. Tomorrow, Part III.

What Will Run On The Rails? Part I

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post One of the may concepts that is being knocked around for transit in Kansas City is the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) railcar. Manufactured by Colorado Railcar, it is a self-propelled commuter railcar with the capacity to pull two full-sized commuter rail coaches. Basically it's a locomotive with seating. When Kansas City's Southern's Warren Erdman made his presentation to the City Council's Transit and Infrastructure Committee he put forth the potential of "one seat from Blue Springs to Olathe." This is the vehicle some people feel is the answer. This vehicle could travel on existing freight rails from Blue Springs, arriving in the either the Rivermarket or directly into Union Station. Then west and southwest along I-35 into Olathe. As I've mentioned before, any route directly into Union Station from the east is probably not feasible because of freight traffic. This vehicle is more for commuter rail than inter-urban transit, although I present it as an option because there are some who feel the DMU could run through through the streets of the urban core during morning and afternoon rush hours. Advantages: - Full FRA Compliance - This means the DMU meets Federal Railroad Administration guidelines for crash standards allowing it to run on the same tracks as freight trains. - It's available now and manufactured in the United States which is a requirement of most federal funded programs - It is self-propelled so it needs no overhead catenaries or electrified third-rail. - It is scalable so you can either run one unit or pull up to two more passenger cars as demand warrants. Disadvantages: - It's huge! It's not even light rail. Its FRA compliance means it's heavy rail. - It's loud. The manufacturer claims it is "neighborhood friendly" but this thing was never intended to run on city streets. It's a locomotive, not a trolley. - It's the least fuel efficient of all the rail-based options. Conclusion: I feel the DMU is not a viable option for anything other than commuter rail. I cannot conceive this vehicle running through the streets of KC. But then again, I've seen a lot of things happen that I couldn't fathom.

The Route Is The Root Of All Evil

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post The Kansas City Urban Society's initial proposed light rail route runs from 3rd and Grand in the Rivermarket south to Crown Center where it picks up Main and then continues to the Plaza. It then takes a turn east on Volker, running along Brush Creek before terminating at the Stowers Institute at Volker and Troost. This route has met with two major criticisms. First, conventional wisdom says that any starter line must span the Missouri River in order to garner the support of the 1st and 2nd district voters. Second, the sentimental feeling is that any light rail route must stop at Union Station. First, the river. I agree with the northlanders. We have to span the river first shot out of the box. Promises of "Phase II" never seem to get implemented. There are worries about which bridge we could use. Would we need a new bridge? Could we use the old ASB? Will the Heart of America support the weight of a rail corridor? We need to answer these questions first, span the river to at least Vivian and North Oak Trafficway and include the northlanders in on this project. Next, Union Station. I have to admit I was originally in the "any rail must go to Union Station" crowd but I have since changed my mind. Well, actually I should say that Kevin Klinkenberg of the Urban Society changed my mind. Kevin has a way of doing that. I come in to a conversation with him having preconceived notions about my way being correct and he invariably turns me around to his way of thinking. Damn him and his facts and common sense. The problem with a Union Station connection involves "the jog." Is it worth deviating from the straight shot down Grand to jog over to Union Station, then east on Pershing back to Grand and Crown Center? Originally I thought "yes" but now I say "no." Talk of commuter rail from Johnson County has been the primary driving force behind this connection. JoCo commuters could arrive via commuter rail into Union Station and then hop on light rail to complete their journey. The problem is that the commuter rail line has been "under study" for over ten years. BNSF Railroad has been unwilling to share their line or right-of-way because they use it for freight. A lot of freight. With rising gasoline prices rail freight is seeing dramatic increases so BNSF traffic will become even more frequent in that corridor. The chances of commuter rail via that route are fading faster than the Royals. Besides, Main is just a 200yd walk through Washington Square Park from Union Station. I'm sure we could make some minor improvements and have a nice walkway over to Main. In the end, my opinion is the starter line should extend from north of the river (Burlington & Armour?), cross the river via the Heart of America Bridge, stop at 3rd and Grand and then get as far south down Grand as we can afford. Opinions? Rants? Raves? Comments are open. Next up. What should run on the rails? The answer might not be as simple as you think.

A Desire Named Streetcar?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post The prevailing winds indicate that the voter approved light rail plan will not be implemented in its current form. In fact, most parts of the plan may not, and should not be implemented at all. The plan is too ambitious, and frankly too short-sighted. I am confident the public did not vote for gondolas or electric buses. They voted for light rail, and that's what they should have. The Kansas City Urban Society has presented preliminary plans for an alternative rail plan. While far less expansive than the voter-approved plan, it has the potential of doing something the current plan cannot; start laying track in less than five years. By scaling back to a very small starter line, the KCUS argues that we can forgo the federal funding process of studies, applications, more studies, waiting, perhaps another study, consultants, more applications and finally a potential denial of funds in seven to ten years leaving us without rail, and financially poorer in the process. I was unable to attend the Urban Society's forum where they took public input on their plan. I did however, have the luxury of one of the KCUS board members giving me the highlights of the event over lunch. The consensus from that event is any alternate plan presented to the voters must cross the Missouri River in its first phase. Over the next few days I'll be throwing my own opinions out there regarding the Urban Society's proposal. In advance I'll say I am in agreement in principle with the KCUS. I like the concept, although it only exists in broad sketch strokes. For now, I think it's fair to use this venue as a forum of public opinion. What say you, gentle readers? Any initial thoughts?

Legislative Duty

By Airick Leonard West The Kansas City Post In our society, citizens are expected to participate through being drafted to serve in time-consuming assignments that include listening to expert testimony, drawing specific conclusions on the information they are presented with, and making a consensual decision. This process happens every day in every state and thousands of people participate. We cherish this responsibility because these deliberations are binding and have significant impacts on the individuals who stand before this gathering of peers. We call this radical aspect of our judicial system, 'jury duty.' But this process can also work if applied to our legislative system. Particularly in light of the new team at city hall, kansas city is ready for, 'legislative duty.' Today, citizen involvement in the legislative system is voluntary and usually not at all systematic. Instead, when city council looks for citizen involvement, it frequently forms a task force of appointed individuals or commissions an independent study that includes focus groups and questionnaires. While these forms of citizen involvement have worked well for some tasks, there are a few noteworthy shortcomings. Chiefly, the citizen input in this capacity is neither binding nor influential (and while voting is a binding form of participation, there is no other direct method of binding citizen involvement in the legislative process). Task forces tend to allow for in-depth evaluation of issues, but rarely have proportional representation since they are typically appointed positions. and while a commissioned study may evaluate a proportional and representational subset of the population, they don't commonly allow for the depth of citizen engagement that a task force might. And neither of these approaches necessarily employ a consensus model of deliberation. 'Legislative Duty' is the middle ground between these two common approaches. In this model, a citizen task force is commissioned of randomly selected citizens from within the legal jurisdictional boundaries. These citizens are summoned in the same manner as citizens would be for jury duty. Once an appropriate body has been convened, the task force is presented with an issue that has been previously agreed upon by city council. The body is briefed on its duty and the expected outcomes of the task force after which it is presented with information and experts representing multiple perspectives and disciplines. Once the body has heard evidence, it is allowed to deliberate utilizing an experienced facilitator trained in facilitating towards consensus. This is not unlike a jury deliberation where the consensus process requires a rigorous parsing of the information and a judgment of the merits. Citizen engagement in the local legislative process is an untapped potential of our city -- the mayor's decision to open nominations for boards and commissions to the public is a valuable first step. Taking this philosophy a step further, legislative duty is a direct, deliberative, consensus-based citizen participation technique that will challenge our conventional notions of authentic citizen participation. Ideally, concepts such as this will reinvigorate our democracy and will remind the citizenry that voting is only intended to be the most basic form of civic duty, not the end of our collective responsibility.

No more excuses. Get to work.

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Of the current council members I had contact with during the campaign, I don't recall one of them asking the voters for patience while they "learned the job." The rhetoric that most politicians (myself included) threw around was they were "experienced" and "ready to hit the ground running." Now is the time we find out what our new leadership is made of. Who is going to hit the ground running and who is just going to hit the ground? It's time to get to work. There is plenty of legislative housekeeping that can and should be addressed immediately. The panhandling ordinance. The Red Bridge Road project. There are also many less high profile issues that need to be addressed. Jurisdiction of codes inspectors. Sidewalk cafe permits and other small business policies. Changes to the codes enforcement process. The list is long. The list is important. It would be interesting if each councilperson transferred all their campaign issues from their sites over to the official website, so we could all track their progress. Think that's going to happen? In fact, one of our elected official's campaign site has already taken down all its Issues content. Another never had any to begin with. It's still "Coming Soon!" Get over to BlogKC and check things out for yourself before all these sites disappear completely. I challenge this new council to use their official web presence as more than a vanity page. Tell us what you're priorities are for the next six months. What ordinances do you intend to author? What ordinances do you intend to change? What policies will you influence to make City Hall run more efficiently? In short, what will you do and what have you done for us lately?

Consider Kansas City

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post In a post yesterday on my blog My Town, My Take, I wondered aloud why Kansas City is not aggressively pursuing new businesses. Especially light manufacturing. I think people may have gotten hung up on the company I was talking about, XsunX who is in the business of solar energy. Even though my own personal desire would be to have several hi-tech sustainable energy companies in Kansas City, our focus doesn't have to be exclusively green. The bigger picture is to have an economic development policy that includes aggressively pursuing new business opportunities. XsunX fits my criteria because they are creating something. I'm not advocating some panicked hand-wringing reaction to a Kansas City company threatening to move across the state line. I'm certainly not proposing that we provide incentives for a company to move from one part of town to another and call it "growth." XsunX is going to build a new manufacturing facility where none existed before. They're not closing a factory somewhere or consolidating several locations into one. We're talking "in addition to." Economics 101. This is called job creation. The opportunities exist. With the growing influx of venture capital into Silicon Valley, once again facilities costs will begin to skyrocket and companies will look outside of California for more cost-effective locations. They will look for locations that are centrally located, have easy access to rail and trucking hubs, have a major airport with the capacity to handle freight, have a smaller airport conveniently located adjacent to the urban core for executive travel, have a low cost of living compared to other metropolitan areas and have a motivated workforce. Know any places like that? I do! I'm just a concerned citizen with a news aggregator who sees these types of opportunities flash across my desktop. If I had the formal capacity to contact these companies and make a sales pitch to them I would. Instead I have to hope our elected officials and economic development officials are making these calls. Are they? Or are they content to wait for the next local company to threaten to leave, give them incentives and call it economic growth?