Make sure you read that contract...

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???

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

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.