It isn't easy being GreenKC

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post With every passing generation, there is always a "gap" when it comes to knowledge, opinion and even social norms. We live in a city where I know two-person households who claim they can't possibly make it under the two-bag limit on trash days. Recycling? Too much trouble for them. Yet ask any kid under the age of ten about recycling and chances are you will walk away having learned something. These are kids that will reach adulthood without ever having purchased an incandescent light bulb. Some will have never thrown a newspaper in a trash can. Believe it or not, there may very well be 10-year olds right now who will never own a vehicle with a gasoline engine. Such is the pace of our ever changing world. With this in mind, what kind of Kansas City are we preparing for these kids? Will it be a city that fosters and encourages the lessons being taught to every grade schooler? Or will it more likely be a place that falls short of their expectations? Will Kansas City fail to meet what today's kids know to be an Inconvenient Truth? It's too late for Kansas City to take the lead with Green Initiatives. Cities far more progressive than our own have already enacted legislation that will help them achieve significant reductions in their carbon footprint. But while we may have missed the chance to be first on the national front, we can certainly take the opportunity to stand out in Missouri and even the Midwest. Mayor Funkhouser should take this opportunity to leave a legacy of more than controversial board appointments and a toothless economic development policy. Granted, people like my three-trashbag-needing friends will be unimpressed. In fact, some initiatives may prove to be about as popular as a root canal. But the kids will love it! Once again, this is NOT an opportunity to hire consultants. Just steal borrow from other cities and maybe throw in some Midwest sensibility. On that front, I'll throw out some proposals. Most of which are inspired by Los Angeles Mayor AntonioVillaraigoa's GREEN LA action plan. - Increase Kansas City's use of renewable energy to 25% by 2020 - Leverage our municipal franchise agreement between the region's largest utility to directly affect a major source of carbon dioxide and other pollutants -- the production of electricity. - Plant ten thousand trees throughout Kansas City - Require the addition of at least one Electric Vehicle to the city fleet per year for the next 10 years. Encourage the continued use of Compressed Natural Gas and eventually Hydrogen in our larger fleet vehicles - Require energy efficiency retrofits of all city-owned buildings to meet a 20% or more reduction of energy consumption. Require a minimum of LEED Silver rating for all City subsidized projects without exception like the one made for the Sprint Center - Install at least one “green roof” on a City building - Identify fountains that can be retro-fitted for recirculation pumps rather than literally watching our drinking water go down the drain - Identify city properties that can be irrigated with a gray water system - Distribute a compact fluorescent light bulb to every household Cities and states that have enacted aggressive green initiatives have discovered a two-fold benefit. First, they have reduced their dependence on fossil fuels, but to some perhaps the happiest effect has been an marked increase in economic development around an entirely new industry. It may not be easy being green, it's certainly not easy going green, but I don't think anyone has a problem with it being profitable.

I guess a little sewage is "good enough?"

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post I campaigned for city council talking about how we could fix our sewer problems. Even though everybody told me "you can't win with sewers" (and they were obviously right). I talked about the impending multi-billion dollar project. I talked about how unconscionable it was to dump raw sewage into Brush Creek. I talked about how it was our responsibility to clean up the mess that previous City Councils had left us. In 2007 we have the technology to stop behaving like 19th Century polluters. It will be expensive, it will be difficult, it will be unpopular, but sometimes the moral thing comes with those pesky little add-ons that politicians seeking re-election are loathe to address. I had done the research. I had studied Louisville, Milwaukee, even St. Louis among others. There are no silver bullets to be found. To fix Kansas City's inexcusable sewer problems is going to take some intestinal fortitude. It's going to take surcharges, and yes maybe even taxes. First and foremost it's going to take a self-imposed moratorium on new connects and a system of environmental credits that only allow new connects as older sections in violation are repaired. It's going to take the establishment of an informal economy that allows the barter and purchase of these credits between developers in the built-out areas south of the river and the greenfields of the Northland. It's going to take the leadership ability to stand up and take an unpopular position. To impose a tax. To risk not being re-elected. OR.... We do as our current Transportation and Infrastructure committee and recommend lowering the bar. We say dumping a little sewage is better than dumping a lot of sewage in our lakes and tributaries. We wring our hands and blame our upstream neighbors to the west and say things like "I don't know what we can legally do to our friends to the West" as Councilman Ed Ford stated. How about picking up the phone and giving them a call? Why the immediate adversarial tack instead of some diplomatic courtesy? Maybe our "friends to the West" are not the evil sewage barons our council is making them out to be? “Do we care if people swim in Brush Creek, or could it just be an amenity?" Councilperson Jan Marcason asked. Yes we care! Yes we care that we can travel through space, store the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a silicon chip smaller than the head of a pin, type a message on a computer keyboard and have it instantaneously appear around the world, but we can't stop dumping our raw sewage into Brush Creek?! "At some point, it just doesn’t become cost effective to do that” said Councilperson Marcason last week. That's a very cavalier attitude for such an important topic. Light rail? Downtown development? Sports arenas? These are the kind of projects we can pull out our calculators and talk about the bottom line. We can say things like "good enough" or "what's the harm?" But the health and welfare of present and future Kansas Citians? When did our health and environment become "just an amenity?"

Why put your child in a KCMO public school?

By Airick Leonard West The Kansas City Post I have a 14yr old in the Kansas City, Missouri public school district. A friend that knows me well understands my passion for public education. Despite this understanding, she still recently asked the all too familiar question, 'why is he in a district school?' Here are some facts: - I could afford to send him to a private school - I could get him into a charter school - I could homeschool him (ok... maybe that's pushing it) - The KCMO school district has challenges - As a whole, the KCMSD is not doing well - As a community, we deserve to be angry about this injustice - The KCMSD has several very good schools - It is very possible to get a solid education from the KCMSD - I am willing to do whatever is required to ensure that he gets a great education no matter which school -- public or otherwise -- that he attends Given this lineup of realities, I choose to stand in solidarity with the multitude of families that have chosen the Kansas City, Missouri public school district for their children as well. Whether through the African-centered academy, Lincoln Academy or the collection of strong academic institutions within the district, great educations still occur every day here. While some progress has been made, obviously, we have a long way to go. Better is still never good enough. It will require great effort to transform our district into an oasis of opportunity. But the same effort will be required to turn our neighborhoods into communities of choice. If we are strong enough to commit to one, then we would be wise to commit to both -- indeed, I do not believe either will come apart from the other. To succinctly convey my perspective on this topic, I share these three messages in closing: - To those who have chosen to give up on public education Though I have heard your pain and understand many of your concerns, I will not stand with you. Public education is the last hope for too many of our neighbors. I cannot see a way to divorce myself from them without allowing all else that I believe in to become estranged as well. - To those who are thinking of giving up on public education Hold hope. There is no end to what is possible when a community of people stand together. We must join the legion of sisters and brothers that are creating new possibilities for our schools. Collectively, we will find our way through this darkness. And the light we bring will shine brightly on all Kansas Citians. - To those who choose to stand for a viable school district I proudly stand with you.

Red Bridge Road: The Return of Bridgezilla

By Craig Morea The Kansas City Post Friends of Red Bridge was excited to participate in the first meeting of the advisory committee for "Future Red Bridge" held on August 30th. We believed this to be an opportunity to find a solution which would be good for the neighborhoods, good for the park and historic setting of the bridge, and good for the environment. We believed this to be an opportunity for Kansas City to employ a planning method known as Context Sensitive Solutions. CSS is a collaborative, multi-disciplinary process mandated by the Federal Highway Administration for adoption by state departments of transportation across the country. While we firmly believe in an attempt to find a better solution, there are many issues with the City's process and with those who have been invited (or not invited) to participate. Among them: The compacted schedule virtually assures a lack of thoroughness. The purpose of the entire study was set by Council resolution and by many public statements by Council members to be the creation of alternative plans to the previous design. However, the project team has rejected that mandate, and instead has substituted the goal of creating a community consensus. Though Friends of Red Bridge called for the application of Context Sensitive Solutions, and we had the cooperation of our Council representatives in that regard, what is actually being presented is some distant relative. The design team chosen by the City does not seem to understand the requirements of the process. Many stakeholders are not at the table who should be, such as environmental advocates, historical concerns and city planners. On the other hand, commercial interests are heavily represented. The representative of the South Kansas City Chamber in her opening comments stated that she was there to represent business interests. If so, the representatives of Lipari's Sun Fresh and the International House of Prayer are redundant. The study area only goes to Holmes Road; no neighborhood associations to the west have been invited. A planned public opinion survey originally excluded almost everyone west of the project area. (They were included only after several people pointed out that those people should be included.) Last Thursday's Future Red Bridge advisory committee meeting was mainly a presentation of the proposed process. As a part of the process, those in attendance were asked to state what they felt should be considered in the new design. Many participants expressed interest in the same issues: safety for both vehicles and neighborhoods, maintaining the historical nature of the area, and keeping it in scale with the park setting. However, Tim Henry, representing Citizens for New Red Bridge, stated that his group will not accept anything other than the original massive bridge, calling into question the possibility of a consensus. Web Links: http://www.redbridgeroad.org

Soccer, TIF & The Internal Rate of Return

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post On September 12 what's left of the TIF Commission will hear the initial proposal from Lane 4 Property Group Inc. regarding a proposed 467-acre development on the Bannister Mall site. Anchored by an MLS stadium for the Kansas City Wizards, the proposal calls for almost three million square feet of retail, offices and a hotel. Developers are of course seeking over $200 million in Tax Increment Financing from Kansas City. The Kansas City Star reports that the developer claims that TIF, plus additional subsidies from the state of Missouri are necessary to provide them with a 12.2% Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Crucial questions that I'm sure no TIF Commissioner will ask of the developer are "What is your assumed hurdle rate?" "May we see your net present value cash flow schedule?" or even a more generic "How did you arrive at that 12.2% figure?" I have sat through many TIF Commission meetings where a developer's representative starts throwing around IRR values and watched in shock as commissioners simply nodded their heads in agreement. "Ask the question!" I would think to myself. "Ask any question" would have probably been more appropriate. Of course the question was never asked. Never challenging a premise often leads to disaster in the world of finance. The problem or advantage, depending on your point of view, is the IRR is dependent on an estimate. In order to "arrive at that 12.2% figure" you have to make an assumption about what kind of percentage return you will get on your cash (discount rate) as you reinvest it. Sound complicated? It can be, so I'll spare you the derivation. For the adventurous, you can do like I did and break out your old text books for a little refresher course. The continued use of the IRR in real estate investment has met with much skepticism in the financial community. The equation does not handle irregular cash flows well, it can be easily manipulated to provide a desired outcome and its very base requires an guess estimate. To compound the problem, a flawed presumption is being presented to a TIF Commission that historically is made up of friends and associates of the sitting mayor, not qualified financial, legal and real estate professionals. I like the idea of a professional soccer complex in south Kansas City, but not at the expense of taking a developer at their word. When it comes to economic development incentives in Kansas City, why won't somebody ask the question?

The best time to plant a tree is 25 years ago

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Kansas City has what is classified as a "Mature Urban Forest". That means the majority of our street trees are aging and in decline. They won't all die tomorrow, but most of them will fade during this generation. It is unfortunate that a city with a proud history of parks and boulevards has no Street Tree Master Plan. Kansas City has a street tree policy, but it takes more than a few pages of guidelines to foster a healthy urban forest for future generations. Did you know it is against city ordinance for private citizens to plant anything in the area between the sidewalk and the street? That space is considered public ground and therefore limited in its utilization. The trees that do grow in the parkway are the responsibility of the City. It's ironic that so many Kansas Citians unknowingly break the law by planting their own saplings at a fraction of the cost of what the City incurs doing it "legally." Why is it so expensive for the City to plant a tree? The simple answer is policy. It's the policy of the City Forester to require all trees planted in public parkways to be of a certain size. It's also policy that due to budget cuts and politics, the City no longer maintains its own tree nursery. Most saplings planted by the City are purchased from a private nursery. If the City Forester would relax the current policy that requires any tree planted on a right-of-way have a two inch caliper, we could save significant dollars by planting cheaper trees. A 2 inch caliper tree is about 6 foot tall and can go for around 500 to 700 dollars or more depending on the species. Little saplings are much less expensive. More in the $25 and under range. Saplings are also less costly to replace if they don't survive the first few crucial years. It used to be the norm in Kansas City to plant saplings two-deep on parkways. That way we doubled our chances of a successful planting, and if both survived the crucial first couple of years, one could be dug and moved to another location. What happened to that kind of practicality? The City should work with the neighborhoods to inventory our street tree population so we can anticipate when the trees will need to be replaced and where we need to plant trees to replace ones that have already been removed. Centralizing all that information in a database; species, approximate age, condition, etc would allow us to anticipate when and where street trees will require care or replacement. This too could be accomplished with volunteers at little or no cost to the taxpayers. Finally, and most importantly, we plant saplings. Lots of them. Anywhere we can find a spare patch of dirt. On seldom used public land, even Land Trust lots which don't seem to be doing much anyway except racking up codes complaints and weed mowing bills. We organize volunteer groups and even individuals who would be willing to host a sapling. I have a couple of White Oak saplings myself that I've been fostering. We can maintain this tree inventory at little or no cost to the taxpayers and when we need a tree somewhere we'll have one, for free instead of paying six or seven hundred dollars in tax money to some nursery. These ideas can all be included in a Master Street Tree Plan. The City Council doesn't need to hire consultants, or form focus groups. They don't even need a corporate-style retreat so they can discuss what they feel they should be doing. They just need to steal borrow the framework from other municipalities who have successful policies in place. A little word smithing, changing a paragraph or two, run it by the right people and hey we've got a Master Street Tree Plan! The City frequently tells residents we have no money for new street trees. That may be true, but we don't have the money for a lot of things. There are alternatives. In the mean time, plant a tree! We'll figure out where to put it later. As the old saying goes, "The best time to plant a tree is twenty five years ago. The next best time is today."