No need to get yourself in a TIF

Friday night my wife threw a big birthday bash for me at the Loose Mansion in Hyde Park. It was a roaring 20's theme which was pretty cool because that was when Jacob and Ella Loose were at the height of their lives, throwing elaborate parties in the mansion they built for that purpose. I think everybody had a good time and I was glad to see our guests fall in love with the Loose Mansion the way I have. Ken & Barb Saathoff have done a tremendous job renovating the place. It is truly a Kansas City treasure. Quick disclaimer. The Saathoffs are friends of mine. After reading about how one person has taken it upon herself to try and destroy the Saathoffs' and cut this Kansas City landmark into condos, I sought Ken and Barb out and offered whatever help I could. The first time I toured the mansion with its original Tiffany chandelier, mahogany woodwork and Italian tile I was a goner. The place is magnificent and a real tribute to Jacob and Ella Loose whose legacy includes Children's Mercy Hospital, Loose Park and the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation. In this day and age of tax abatements and TIF, the Saathoffs did the whole project out of their own pockets. Over a million dollars! No handouts from the taxpayers. No groveling in front of the TIF Commission or the PIEA with a sob story about how hard it is to develop in the urban core. I'll point to them the next time some developer tells me he needs tax breaks to "make the numbers work." Look at the tax records for the Loose Mansion. 2003 and earlier is from before the Saathoffs did their renovations. 2004 until the present is after. Tax Year 2005: $13,244.32 Tax Year 2004: $12,643.09 Tax Year 2003: $175.70 Tax Year 2002: $175.70 Tax Year 2001 : $175.70 They are paying the full tax load. It's the small business owners in this town that keep things running and carry the weight for the big guys. While projects like Kirkwood Circle on the Plaza get a free pass at tax time, the little guys make up the difference. That needs to stop.

What a drag it is getting old...

Today is my birthday. 40. It's tough for me to look at. Seems like only yesterday I was counting the days until I turned 13. A real teenager! Then I couldn't wait for 16. I could finally drive! (legally that is) Then 18, a legal adult. Then the big 21 and off to Kelly's in Westport. Or the Hurricane. Or Buzzard Beach. Or Millstreet Country Club. Or The Lone Star. Or Blaney's... After that I pretty much stopped paying attention to how old I was. Sure there was some kind of celebration for 30, but to tell the truth it really didn't make much difference to me. Now I'm 40. I'm not sure how I should feel about that. I'm not bummed; just introspective. I guess I can't feel too bad. I have six older siblings that are facing the fact that their baby brother is an old guy. Imagine how that makes them feel.

Fake it to the limit, one more time...

Dave Helling over at kc buzz blog reports that the City Council is trying to throw one by the voters with a supposed campaign contribution limit ordinance. I love the "Whereas's" at the beginning of this one. What they said: "WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that preserving integrity and openness in the political process is a matter of the highest public interest" What they didn't say: "and therefore seeks to figure out a way around it." What they said: " WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to promote and encourage broad-based citizen involvement in the financing of election campaigns" What they didn't say: "and by broad-based we mean big time contributors and PACs who think $1000 is pocket change." What they said: I KID YOU NOT: " WHEREAS, the City council further finds that regulation of campaign contributions is required because the costs of running political campaigns have reached levels that lead to a public perception that special interests and wealthy individuals may have undue influence on or access to elected officials" What they didn't say: "and we understand that the public perception in this case is 100% accurate." Here's the deal. The Missouri laws on contribution limits end on January 1, 2007. Theoretically this means that all bets are off and one wealthy individual or PAC could put as much money as they want into any candidate's campaign. So on the surface it looks like the council is being responsible and taking up the mantle of campaign finance reform. Ahh, but wait! The council is setting limits of $2000 for mayor, $1500 for at-large council and $750 for in-district council. What are the current limits you ask? $1275 for both mayor and at-large candidates and $325 for us lowly in-district candidates. What this means is if the council has their way, there will be a free-for-all after January 1st with all the big-money candidates going back to their large contributors and getting them to buck up to the max. The council is actually raising the limits! This doesn't affect me very much. I have set a maximum amount of money I intend to raise. I am not making that figure public yet, but it's less than half of what two of my opponents already have in the bank. I think the sums being reported for some of these state and local races are obscene. If I can't win this election on issues and good old-fashioned hard work then I have little hope for the future of Kansas City government. If the council is serious about campaign finance reform, why not impose spending limits? Put a ceiling on the dollars and make the candidates actually campaign instead of fundraise. But that's just me...

One of these things is not like the other...

I was recently asked to comment on the seven charter questions we will be voting on August 8th. Being the kind of guy that likes to drill down to the details, I discovered an unusual difference between the ballot language and the actual ordinance regarding recall petitions. I know, I know. What kind of geek actually checks the ballot language against the ordinance? Guilty as charged. Bear with me; this is probably boring to anyone but us detail junkies. The ballot language reads: "Should the Charter of Kansas City be amended by requiring a committee of petitioners seeking the recall of the Mayor or a Council member to state a reason for the recall that must relate to malfeasance, misfeasance or misconduct, and by conducting a single election at which a person would be chosen to serve the remainder of the term of the official subject to the recall petition; and permitting the official subject to the recall petition to also be a candidate to continue in office?" So far so good. I agree that you should have to state why you want to recall an elected official on the petition. Makes sense to me. As far as the legalese, "malfeasance" is just a fancy word for "you did something wrong on purpose." "Misfeasance" means "you did something wrong by accident" and I think we all understand "misconduct." I won't rant on wording ballot language in such a way that a non-lawyer needs Black's Legal Dictionary to interpret it. The ordinance language reads: "Calling for submission to the voters of Kansas City, at a special election to be held on August 8, 2006, a question amending the Charter of Kansas City to require a committee of petitioners seeking the recall of the Mayor or a Council member to identify the actions or failure to act on the part of the official, which must be related to the official's duties, which forms the basis of the recall and requiring placement of the grounds before the voters; eliminating the question of recall and providing for a single election at which the official and any other qualified candidate may seek to serve the remainder of the term of office of the official subject to the recall petition; directing the City Clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of the election on or after May 26, 2006, but not later than May 30, 2006; and recognizing this ordinance to be an emergency measure." Here's where I get nervous. The ballot language mentions nothing about “related to the official's duties.” I think any recall should be related to the official's duties but who makes that determination? Is it up to the Board of Elections who certifies the petition? Doubtful. Maybe the City Council who is responsible for drafting an ordinance directing the City Clerk to put it on the ballot? Once again, doubtful. I'm guessing it would have to go before a municipal judge. This is one more layer of politics that I'm sure would involve lots of legal maneuvering. The lawyers for the elected official would argue for outright dismissal, then an injunction, and then possibly an appeal. To make a long story longer, I find too many differences to be comfortable with this proposition. But that's just me. However you vote, make sure you vote. You may want to bring a lawyer with you though...

Out To Pasture

BlogKC has something to say about providing Tax Increment Financing for a nice piece of real estate in the northland. I could write something witty or snarky. I could even make an argument using financial analysis. But I think BlogKC sums it up nice and succinctly: "No sane person can credibly argue that this greenfield site in the middle of our metro'’s hottest suburban market needs any public subsidy. " BlogKC goes on to applaud one councilperson for being the lone dissenting vote. A commenter on that post correctly points out that being the lone vote against the measure does nothing but grab you some valuable press. I genuinely think the councilpeople that I know personally are good people. But good people or not, they blew this one. I think it's important that I stand up and voice my disapproval of horrible deals like this. Of course I also understand that posts like this mean more developer campaign contribution money I won't be getting! Oh well.

Follow The Money...

People love to dig into campaign finance reports. There can be all kinds of interesting things. Who is donating to the candidate? What are they spending their money on? I recently saw an email being circulated around detailing the fundraising of each candidate in the Senate 10th race. kc buzz blog regularly reports on campaign finance issues in the County Exec race. I get anonymous emails asking me about anything you can imagine. The whole thing has sort of a clandestine feel to it. I feel like I should be meeting with Hal Holbrook in a parking garage late at night. "I have to do this my way" he would say in a raspy voice. "I will only confirm or deny. Follow the money..." In the interest of full (and boring) disclosure I'm providing a link to my latest fundraising report. It's pretty pathetic if you gauge a candidate's worth by dollars and cents. I've been spending more time "vote raising" than fundraising. I've got about $4K in the bank right now. Expenditures? I didn't spend a dime this past quarter. What would there be to spend money on? I do intend to come out pretty strong this quarter and start cornering some friends to get them to cough up a check. I can run a pretty decent in-district campaign on $4K but I would feel a little better with some more cash. So for all of you who know me, get ready for the full court press for contributions. I'll be seeing you soon. Unless of course you see me first...

Qualified Applicants Need Not Apply

DeAnn Smith over at kc buzz blog reports that Jackson County legislators announced Monday they were taking applications for the five-member Sports Authority Commission. That sounds really good on the surface. Actually having people apply for the job. Submitting resumes, discussing their qualifications (or lack thereof) and in general explaining to the taxpayors of Jackson County why they are the best to oversee the $1 Billion TSC overhaul. Problem is, word on the street is the slate is already chosen. Qualified individuals? Maybe someone with project management experience? A finance background? Someone with an extensive background in the sports entertainment industry? Nope. Just some well-connected political insiders who will enjoy the free season tickets each commissioner receives (in a suite no less) for the Chiefs. Have things really gotten so bad that our leaders don't even care about the appearance of impropriety anymore? Did they ever?

A Streetcar We Desire?

For a while I had a really cool secret. Part of the fun of being a candidate, and hopefully a councilman is that you get to find out about things that are in the works. The RTA is working on a plan that will bring streetcars to downtown Kansas City. When I was briefed on the subject it was still pretty much a "back of the napkin" scheme so propriety dictated that I keep my big mouth shut. My biggest concern was that it be "more private" and "less public". We have a sewer to build after all. It was a fun afternoon of sketching possible routes, discussing construction logistics and of course the politics involved with an ambitious plan like this. Well the cat's out of the bag. In the July RTA Newsletter they report the following: Downtown Streetcar Initiative - RTA is working with the Convention & Visitor’s Association, the Downtown Council, the City of Kansas City and major private sector entities to develop a new, unique transportation system to link Crown Center, the Crossroads district, the Power & Light Entertainment District and the Convention Center district. This system will be a private-public partnership with the purpose of improving transportation among these areas for the benefi t of tourists, conventioneers, sports fans, entertainment district patrons and the increasing number of people living and working downtown. Don't get your trolley tokens out just yet. There are still a lot of logistical things to be worked out to determine whether or not this plan is even possible. First and foremost the "private" part of the private-public partnership will probably involve the creation of a Transportation Development District (TDD) which is basically a self-imposed taxing district on the businesses who would directly benefit from tourists being shuttled back and forth from their front doors. Then there's the issue of right-of-way through public streets, moving utilities, etc. I think it's a good idea. Yes it's "touristy frou-frou" but that's exactly the kind of thing you need if you want to attract conventioneers to downtown. The plan is workable, but much like the Chiefs annual playoff picture in about week 15 it's going to take a combination of a lot of things falling into place. Not the least of which is some creative thinking at City Hall. Stay tuned...

One man's trash is another's displeasure

I get to spend every other Friday morning at the Action Center. I serve on the 311 Oversight Committee so I have the privilege of seeing behind the scenes what the Action Center people are up against in trying to serve the citizen's needs. This morning I sat in the manager's office while she took an escalated call from a concerned citizen. It seems an absentee landlord has done an illegal "set out" which basically means he took everything the previous tenant left and threw it to the curb. I was shocked when the manager told the caller that they would send a notice to the landlord but he would have 10 days to clear the violation. 10 days! Fortunately for the caller the Action Center was able to dispatch a City crew today to clean up the mess without having to wait 10 days for the landlord to do it. I asked why a health hazard like curbside rubbish isn't treated differently than tall weeds or peeling paint. What I got was an education in bureaucracy gone bad. You would be amazed at the holes in our City ordinances when it comes to nuisance violations. All codes inspection has been consolidated under Neighborhood Preservation which is all well and good, but our City Charter says that Neighborhood Preservation has no jurisdiction on public property. Public property like the parkways where landlords dump their trash! The parkways fall under the jurisdiction of Public Works, but Public Works no longer does codes enforcement. Why? Because all codes enforcement was consolidated into Neighborhood Preservation! There is real work to be done if I am fortunate enough to be elected. All it will take is some crafty legislation to fix these problems. Then the Action Center can do their job. The codes enforcement people can do their jobs. The citizens will be happier with their City services. This seems pretty easy, and it is. I guess since it's not a big development and there's no opportunity to smile for the cameras and cut ribbons, it's just not important to most elected officials. That's going to change. Count on it.

It's Not The EATs It's The Stupidity

Come on! You have to give me credit for that title! In the TIF world, EATs are Economic Activity Taxes (Sales Tax, Earnings Tax, etc). Typically, along with the abated property tax payments, TIF recipients also pay 50% of their Economic Activity Taxes into the reimbursement fund that goes back to the developer to reimburse for lovely things like parking garages. Recently the TIF Commission created quite a stir by actually asking for more financial information regarding a proposed TIF deal for two garages. One, a $4 million garage containing 290 spaces for the D.A. Morr Transfer building in the Crossroads. That's about $13K a spot for those of you scoring at home. The other garage, containing 151 spaces, will cost $5 million and serve the H.D. Lee building. Now we're talking! That's $33K a space! Those must be some parking spaces. Are they sheathed in original marble unearthed from archeological digs of the Roman Coliseum? I don't know which is worse. The fact that the TIF commission so rarely asks for financial information that it's actually news when they do? Or that when a developer comes back and says a parking garage will cost $5 million because it will be really really hard to build, the TIF Commission agrees. Why even bother? This is the kind of stuff that makes my head hurt. Yeah I enjoy getting out my financial calculator and doing more with it than balancing my checkbook, but come on. The real elephant in the room is that we have such archaic zoning regulations that they actually require so many parking spaces for so many square feet of building. One building, one garage. Gee, just like the suburbs. Yeah that's real urban. (sarcasm) Can you imagine what Greenwich Village in NY or Chinatown in San Francisco would look like if they had to follow Kansas City parking regulations? Would you want to go there?

Long Train Running

TKC comments on The Star's article about BNSF's desire to put a billion dollar freight hub in Gardner. Residents are rightfully nervous about what kind of neighbor a giant freight hub will make. Noise, pollution and property values are all issues that Gardner residents want addressed. The Star points out that railroads in the US have a historical free pass when it comes to development and eminent domain. This goes back to the days of the first transcontinental railroad and the need for rapid expansion of passenger and freight service to the West. Recently Atlantans were unsuccessful in stopping Norfolk Southern from developing a freight center there, but at least were able to secure a few million for soundproofing, parks and other such concessions. I always try to be a glass half-full kind of guy. If we know that BNSF is going to get their freight center no matter what, and we know that recently the railroads have shown a willingness to work with the communities they do business in, why not get creative? Instead of asking for payouts for things like soundproofing and parkland, why doesn't Gardner ask for commuter rail? Have BNSF build them a rail station and a line into Union Station. Who better to build a railroad than a railroad? I guarantee you if BNSF was building the line the cost wouldn't be the millions of dollars per mile that we hear quoted by private consulting firms. A commuter rail line could do many things for Gardner. They would leapfrog over communities like Olathe and Lenexa in drawing upper income commuters who don't want to live "in the city" but work somewhere in the urban core. BNSF would benefit by being able to draw from a larger labor pool to staff their giant freight center as workers could also use the line to commute to Gardner. I'm sure there are many people who will tell me a thousand reasons why this would never work. But you know what? If you don't ask, the answer is always "no."

United we fail

On the flight home from Chicago I browsed through the Chicago Tribune. A story that caught my eye was titled "Chicago trying to land United." Surely they weren't talking about United Airlines? The same airline that's been in bankruptcy for what seems like forever and has failed to turn a profit in over 5 years? Does this sentence look familiar? "The city's offer includes $4.4 million in tax-increment financing if the airline relocates downtown, according to a source familiar with details of the plan." Ah, good ol' TIF! Not even Chicago can help itself from offering incentives. Have you been to downtown Chicago? It's a very vibrant, desirable place to be. Why offer incentives for a company to move to one of the most desirable locations in the midwest? Simple. It seems Denver and San Francisco can't help themselves either when it comes to giving away the store. Denver is reportedly willing to up the ante to a cool $9 million. No figures from San Fran but they're definitely interested. This incentive war thing has gotten out of hand. Major cities are battling over a poorly run, bankrupted company in an industry notorious for cut-throat competition, terrible profit margins and subject to highly volatile fuel prices. This is not sound economic development policy in my opinion. Remember Kansas City's deal with American Airlines? Hey maybe United Airlines would be interested in the American Airlines overhaul base? NOT!

'I am a line-item for the county'

Okay, this is probably my worst title yet but I just got back from vacation so cut me some slack. Props to the first commentor who can tell me the song this references. The picture is a hint! I wondered about this when I read it: City Council passed an ordinance authorizing a $2,000,000.00 agreement with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority from the Convention and Tourism Fund to be used for maintenance and construction in connection with the Harry S. Truman Sports Complex. The figure is the same as provided by the City in the previous fiscal year. (Ordinance number 060671) kc buzz blog is reporting that KC budget director Troy Schulte wants to opt out of this deal and divert the $2 million someplace else. Maybe neighborhood infrastructure but don't hold your breath. This brings up lots of interesting points. First and foremost is the City of Kansas City obligated to contribute for maintainence and upkeep of the Truman Sports Complex? I know that the history of the deal goes back to a time when KC couldn't afford to build the TSC on its own so Jackson County stepped in and took ownership because it was a larger taxing entity and could absorb the costs. Second thought. The Tourism & Development Fund isn't really intended for infrastructure maintainence. I know the argument is that the TSC is a tourist attraction. I don't dispute that. But aren't other areas of KC considered tourist attractions? The same tourism argument could be made for the Country Club Plaza and I don't believe we have any Tourism & Development Funds going for maintainence there. Finally, this brings to light the overlap of County and City services. Who should fund the Truman Sports Complex? If KC kicks in every year, shouldn't every other municipality in Jackson County?