Statement to the Citizens Task Force on Light Rail

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

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

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?

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?

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?