To Lobby, Or Not To Lobby? That Is The Question.

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post For the past few years Kansas City has had to deal with a shrinking budget. Because only a very small percentage of the city budget is actually discretionary there is very little flexibility as far as cutting programs or finding efficiencies. 2009 is shaping up to be a very lean year and city leaders are already evaluating next year's budget to try and figure out what to cut. Contrary to what you may hear I believe there is still some fat in the budget. For example, did you know the City of Kansas City pays a lobbying firm to work the corridors of Jefferson City? For the next two years we have contracted with the lobbying firm of Gamble & Schlemeier at the rate of $187,563 for the first year and $193,708 for the second year. What exactly do we get for our money? I am not trying to disparage Gamble & Schlemeier. I'm sure it is a fine firm which represents its clients admirably, but does Kansas City need professional lobbying at the state government level? I would maintain we already have elected representatives in both the house and the senate who while working for their individual constituencies within Kansas City should also be working for the greater good of the city in which their constituents live. (Phew! I'm tired just from typing that sentence!) I was once specifically asked by a community organization to commit to keeping the lobbying firm under contract. When I replied that I would not, and put forth that our state representatives and senators are already fine advocates for Kansas City issues they appeared stunned. I asked for one example of how having a professional lobbyist had worked out for them and there was confused silence. They had no idea what, if anything a lobbyist had done for them, they just felt like they needed one! A $200K contract is just one example of what I consider to be tax dollars not well spent. Not to pick on lobbyists exclusively, we also spend a great deal of money every year on marketing. I don't have those dollar amounts handy but I'm sure across the board the total easily outdoes the $200K lobbying expenditure. In these financially difficult times I think we need to take a hard look at each of our city contracts and ask the question, "Is it worth it?" Perhaps the most telling tale of all is told by our lobbying firm's website where they detail their city and county clients' agendas. Clicking on Kansas City agenda comes back blank. Maybe that's accurate. Sometimes I too wonder what our agenda is.

Subverting Democracy On A Technicality

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post Love it or hate it, everybody seems to have a strong opinion about light rail in Kansas City. Until today that debate has been waged on blogs, letters to the editor and the ubiquitous yard sign wars that break out every time a contested ballot issue arises. There is certainly much to criticize about this latest light rail plan. I realize repairing our sewers and other infrastructure should be a higher priority. But the decision to make transit a higher priority has been made by our elected officials. The council has decided that light rail should be voted on first. Agree or disagree, Kansas Citians will be given the opportunity to weigh in on that priority in a few short weeks. Unless of course, the Committee for Sensible Transit has their way. Today, a member of the Committee for Sensible Transit filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the light rail issue from the ballot. Based on a technicality, the lawsuit contends that the city council did not follow charter procedure in putting the light rail issue on the November ballot. A technicality. It's obvious the Committee for Sensible Transit is not acting in a good faith manner trying to protect the citizenry from some horrible wrong. What they're actually trying to do is subvert the democratic process completely because they fear the outcome of a public vote. I don't care about either side's motivation in this debate. It can be argued that both pro and con light rail forces are acting in their own self-interests. That's the nature of the beast. What I do care about is using legal maneuvering to subvert the democratic process. My hope is this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. Who knows. Perhaps the Committee for Sensible Transit has given the pro light rail movement a villain to rally against. I have to admit I'm tempted to vote "Yes" for light rail just on the principle that I have nothing in common with the backers of the Committee for Sensible Transit and I find their tactics abhorrent. I've always said that no matter how rich or powerful someone is we are all equals when we step into the voting booth. Maybe that's what the Committee for Sensible Transit is afraid of.

Westport: No Loitering, No cruising, Curfews or All of the Above?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post There has been a growing problem in Westport that is reaching critical mass and needs to be addressed. Most Saturday nights after midnight, the streets and sidewalks get clogged with people who have no business being in a district that only caters to those 21 and over at that hour. When I say "have no business being in a district" I mean that the majority of those in the crowd are under 21. What business do teenagers have in a district with businesses they cannot enter? Any time our city government or business leaders attempt to address this situation, the specter of racism is raised. Why? Because the majority of the late night Westport sidewalk crowds are African American. To that I say "so what?" The problem isn't crowds of underage black kids. It's crowds of underage kids, period. If there's a bunch of people gathered on a sidewalk showing no interest in letting me through I'm going to move along, regardless of the demographic of the crowd. Would I wade through a throng of early adopters waiting to buy an Iphone so I could patronize an adjoining business on the Plaza? Probably not. Would I fight my way through a crowd of preteens waiting to scream their heads off at a Hanna Montana concert so I could buy a beer at McFadden's? Hardly. Unless highly motivated, most people avoid crowds whenever possible. Wanting to buy a beer at 1AM in Westport does not make you "highly motivated." Not when there are plenty of other establishments in town that are far easier to access. I'm fairly confident that if a crowd of unicorns granting free wishes was blocking the entrance to your business you would be well within your rights to complain. "Take your wish granting somewhere else" you would say. "You're keeping out my customers!" To the business owners of Westport, it's not a race thing, it's a money thing. It must be frustrating to the small business owners in Westport who see their business decline due to underage loiterers. The fact that the sidwalks are public property mean that technically the loitering teenagers are not violating any laws. So how do we strike a balance between respecting the rights of all citizens and supporting the business owners' rights to unimpeded commerce? Many communities have adopted "no loitering" ordinances. Some have employed "no cruising" laws and others have tried curfews either city-wide or in designated zones. Some have tried combinations. Success of these laws passing constitutional muster has been mixed, but their effectiveness has been successful in the communities that have taken great care in their implementation. What I would propose for Westport would be a mix of restrictions put forth for public comment from the community stakeholders. It makes no sense to pass laws that do not have community support, so I would recommend a series of options be put forth in front of people for their input and feedback. Groups given extra weight in their feedback should be members of law enforcement familiar with the unique problems of a night club district, ACLU lawyers with experience in constitutionality of these type of ordinances, business owners who are directly affected by loitering and of course a reasonable cross-section of community leaders. This will not be easy. Any time government seeks to restrict personal liberties is cause for concern but in this case I'm confident that the right balance can be attained. Communities with successful ordinances have done so by following the path of public buy-in instead of unilaterally adopting restrictive ordinances. It's unfortunate that this situation has come to a point where we have to consider legislation, and I certainly don't support our government becoming a "nanny" dictating personal behavior, but the rights of business owners must be weighed against the rights of bored teens with no place to go. In this case, I think that government is responsible for providing an environment that promotes thriving commerce, not providing entertainment for bored teens.