Stop Attacking Volunteers

One of the more freakish sideshows brought on by the controversy involving Gloria Squitiro has been the tendency to attack her volunteer status, and, by extension, the standing of volunteers working for the good of our city. Councilman Ed "Ought to Know Better" Ford has sought an unworkable ordinance threatening volunteers with personal liability for discrimination claims, and a google search for "volunteer" and "Squitiro" opens a treasure trove of muddled thinking and short-sighted over-reaction.

Regardless of the feelings about the Mayor's wife and the (unproven, unanswered) allegations made against, her, the attacks on volunteer roles in City Hall are threatening to rob the City of its ability to function.

In seeking to impose personal liability on all volunteers, Ed Ford would eliminate any chance of getting intelligent people to serve as volunteers anywhere in the City. Would you risk your house for the honor of serving on the City Market Advisory Committee, if you knew an upset person might sue over a decision made by the group? Would you volunteer to serve as a referee for Night Hoops if you realized your "charging" call might force you into bankruptcy? Who would be foolish enough to serve on the Downtown Minority Development Corporation?

The city relies on volunteers in countless roles. The willingness of people to help their community is something to celebrate. Even when one person in a volunteer role is alleged to have performed improperly, wise governance requires that we focus on the behavior, and not the volunteer status of the actor.

If You're on the Gottstein-Gamble Fence . . .

This has been the most awful race of the year, but, despite many friends who support Gamble, I have to stick with my initial choice of Gottstein. It seems many, many people have their minds made up so strongly in this race that they are beginning to lose those minds.

If you're on the fence, though, let me offer one last piece of persuasion. The blogs are full of frothing Gamble supporters whining about a third-party piece exaggerating the extent to which he benefitted from his TIF tax give-away. They ignore the fact it was a third party piece, and that the Gottstein campaign BY LAW could not control it.

Contrast that with the piece below that comes DIRECTLY FROM THE GAMBLE CAMPAIGN. It highlights Beth's Jewishness, and relies on the ugliest photo they could doctor up.

I understand that the desire to win runs strong in a political campaign, but this is a direct call for the KKK vote, and it comes from Gamble. Maybe that kind of thing was okay in the Pendergast era, but I don't like it. If you're on the fence, I hope you'll look at the level to which the Gamble campaign has sunk, and ask yourself if you want people like that around City Hall.
(For a larger, more readable version, click on the picture.)
Sadly, this is not the race I care about the most. I hate to get distracted from the race I truly am passionate about - FUNK for MAYOR! But my sense of right and wrong just can't sit in silence when I see things like this.

Does Anyone Know Who itsdrg@gmail.com Is??

I received a strange email last night from itsdrg@gmail.com. The user of that address is either a creepy sh*t-disturber, or a member of the Gamble campaign (or both). Has anyone else received email from this account? Does anyone know who's using it? If you don't want to post a comment, feel free to email me at dan@gonemild.com.

Gottstein vs. Gamble - A Few Thoughts

There are several interesting races to be decided on March 27, but the one that is going to be drawing the pyrotechnics, probably even moreso that the mayoral race, is the race for the 4th District At-Large. The Gottstein vs. Gamble race appears to have all makings of an ugly, ugly donnybrook - which is sad, because I doubt the truth is going to be well-served, and the candidates are both going to come out of it damaged. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevails, but I'm not feeling really optimistic. If anyone cares, here are a few thoughts about the race . . .

1. Go Roe or No Roe? Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . .

In short, until somebody comes forward with proof that Roe is working for one of the candidates, both sides ought to drop it entirely - kind of a Gamble/Gottstein/Godwin's Law.

2. Debates or Forums? Gamble is trying to make hay by claiming that Gottstein is refusing to participate in "one on one debates". This is silliness - they are both at so many forums, etc., that anyone who hasn't seen them together just doesn't care. Which is most of us - sorry, but this is a kind of sleazy attempt to make it look like Gottstein, who has been all around town and met just about anyone who cares to vote, is somehow dodging Gamble.

Why would Gamble do this? Because he was a late-decider - he didn't decide that the City Council race was worth his while until January. So now, in an attempt to make up for his own lack of effort, he's trying to make it seem like Gottstein is trying some kind of stealth campaign. I gotta call "bullsh#t" on this one.

3. Small Business vs. Non-Profits? The Star thinks that Gamble is a small-business voice. Everyone admires small businesses - scrappy providers of jobs in the face of economic challenge. Count me in - I think it's great that Gamble employs lots of people in the "service industries", cleaning rooms and making food. But let's not go overboard with the small business rhetoric - this is a guy who is tied into a TIF Tax-give-away to the tune of a few million tax dollars taken from schools and potholes and pumped into profit margins.

Gottstein's experience comes from the nonprofit sector - a large and growing segment of our economy, but not one that has the reputation of financial sophistication. On the other hand, she has a Master of Public Administration from one of the best MPA programs in the country, and is well-equipped to participate in running a city government.

In a nutshell, neither should be claiming that experience gives them an edge. Both would be rookies on the city council, and both would need to learn on the job.

4. Jew vs. Catholic If there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the potential tension between the two communities. So far, with the exception of Tony's site, anti-Semitism has been silent, as has anti-Catholicism. Let's all hope it stays that way.

5. Clean Campaigns. I know Gottstein is committed to running a clean campaign, and I've heard that Gamble is similarly committed. On the other hand, both have lots of volunteers who want victory much more than they want a clean campaign. Also, exactly what is a "clean campaign"? Is discussing Gamble's TIF plan clean? Where should the line be drawn, and where will it be drawn in this race? What is responsible reporting of the truth, and what is smearing? And what of the "S/he started it" phenomenon, where one candidate engages in smear campaigning in response to a perceived smear from the other? Given the number of emails and outreaches I've already received in this race, I'm not optimistic that it will be a positive campaign focused on important issues. And that's disappointing, because what I know of both candidates is that they both deserve better, and are capable of better.

ELECTION WARNING - VOTING PLACES CHANGED!!

I started to post my endorsements and predictions, and decided to help voters out by linking to the website that tells you where to vote in Kansas City. Imagine my surprise, though, to find out that it gives you the WRONG INFORMATION!! For example, if you have always voted at the St. Peter's Legacy Center, you don't vote there this time, but, if you go to the Kansas City Election Board website, it will say you do.

Where DO you vote? I can't tell you, and neither can the Missouri Secretary of State, nor the Kansas City Election Board site. All I can tell you is to try to find the little card they mailed you recently, that probably got stuck in with all the campaign pieces, and tossed into the recycling bucket.

UPDATE: After playing around with the site, and trying other methods of figuring out where to vote, I have come up with a work-around to help Kansas City voters. Please follow these instructions carefully if you do not have your little postcard sent out by the Kansas City Election Board.

First, go to the KCEB website and enter your name and street name at the bottom of the left-hand column, where it says "Check your voter status", and hit "enter". THIS IS IMPORTANT - DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLLING PLACE INFORMATION ON THE PAGE THAT COMES UP. Instead, write down your four digit ward and precinct number (mine is 0809). The first two digits are your ward number, and the second two digits are your precinct number. With that information, you should go to the list of polling locations on this page, and find the polling location that will be serving your ward and precinct. Go to that location and vote for you chosen candidates.

Folks, this is ridiculous. In the last election, they made the unfortunate choice to make us use SAT-style, fill-in-the-oval forms without any assurance our votes were tallied. This time, they're shuffling the deck of polling places, on the probably-foolish assumption that we will have low turnout in an election with 12 mayoral candidates.

WHAT KIND OF NINCOMPOOPS CLOSE MORE THAN 20% OF POLLING PLACES ON THE EVE OF ONE OF THE MOST CONTESTED CITY ELECTIONS IN OUR HISTORY?? WHAT KIND OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IS IT TO THEN FAIL TO UPDATE THEIR OWN WEBSITE TO TELL THE VOTERS WHERE THEY MAY VOTE?!?! I sincerely hope that the victorious candidates will get to the bottom of this scandalous stupidity.

Fairfield Smack Down

After writing my blog post criticizing Proposed Ordinance 070180, I wrote each of the committee members expressing my concern about the legislation. Today, I received a response from the author of the anti-street-performer legislation, mayoral candidate John Fairfield. Here is what he had to say:

Dear Constituency:

I am concerned about 3 basic things. One, I have sincere concerns about safety at street intersections. Second is my concern about how aggressive some panhandlers have been and how that could damage our new entertainment area or other areas, or lead to violence. We have invested too much to let that happen. Individuals have told me stories of three panhandlers following a person down the street at night to their grocery store or home. Third, over amplified music is unnecessary, does not create the atmosphere we want, the gas generators are dangerous on crowded streets, and the excessive noise could also drive people away from these areas.

It is interesting that an ordinance designed to deal with aggressive panhandling and safety issues has been converted by the press as some evil attempt to attack street performers. If you read the ordinance carefully, you will find that it focuses on panhandlers and safety.

The bill does not make street musicians the same as panhandlers. They are already considered such by the courts, and the ordinance just recognizes the courts position. It is unfortunate that the courts consider it arbitrary to treat street performers different than panhandlers. When I started to address serious panhandler issues, I was dismayed to find that anyone asking for money (actively or passively), including street performers could be impacted. However, since the courts take this position, we were better off including references to street performers in the ordinance so we can try to deal with the issue. That is one reason I made it clear that we wanted to take the time to consider the issues and possible solutions. The ordinance is just a starting point for discussion.

I have been trying to find legal solutions which would allow the performers but control some of the aggressive panhandling. I have been working with attorneys representing the areas of impact, and have asked them to research how we might address the street performer issue.

We have panhandlers at street intersections causing vehicles to swerve out of their lanes into other vehicles to miss the panhandlers stepping into the street. If we do nothing and someone is killed in an accident, we will be asked why we did nothing to prevent it. As I stated above, panhandlers have ganged up and followed people at night to the grocery store or back to their home. This should not happen. It is easy to say, let the person file a complaint but that is only reactive, and many times has not worked. It seemed better to define times (especially at night) and places when any panhandling was inappropriate.

Last fall I was eating dinner on the second floor deck at the Brio restaurant on the Plaza, and a street performer over a block away had amplified his music so loud our party could not hear each other talk. This is certainly unnecessary, and would not create the atmosphere anyone would favor. Business owners and pedestrians have rights which must be balanced along with the rights of the panhandlers, and street musicians. I knew it would not be an easy task, but true leadership is not about ignoring difficult issues. It is easy for the press to criticize, but much harder to try to find fair solutions to these difficult issues. I would not be much of a Councilman if I always took the easy path.

Believe me, I want the ambiance of street performers, as you do, but I also want to protect the public from those that abuse the panhandling situation for their own benefit. It is always the case that a few bad apples create issues for those who we like.

One possible solution to the street performer issue is to have the owner of the shopping/entertainment district provide a pool of funds for street performers during the non-panhandling hours. I have recently spoken to the some of the district owners’ representatives about this idea. I asked them to discuss how the districts might essentially hire street performers (or rotate them by groups) as a possible solution during the non-panhandling times. Hopefully with continued discussion we can save the good and lose the bad.

Testimony will be taken during the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee hearings that are held on Wednesdays on the 26th Floor of City Hall at 2:00pm. All innovative suggestions towards a reasonable solution are welcome.

Sincerely,

John Fairfield
City Councilman 2nd District-In-District

Here is my response:

Mr.Fairfield,

Thank you for responding to my comment. I emailed each of the committee members, and you are the only one who bothered to respond to me. I sincerely appreciate your responsiveness.

That said, it seems like you're not being straight with me. You claim that you were motivated to propose this ordinance because somebody was followed home or to a grocery store. Where did this happen? There aren't grocery stores on the Plaza, or in the South Loop, or in Zona Rosa. Aren't the VAST majority of grocery stores and Kansas City homes OUTSIDE of the areas your proposed ordinance seeks to protect? It seems to me that well-heeled developers are MUCH more likely to be protected by your ordinance than people walking in residential areas. We can agree on that, can't we?

Your attempt to blame the courts for the fact that your proposed ordinance would ban street performers is silly. Neither one of us believes that you need to ban all street performers in order to eliminate excessive noise, and your attempt to point the finger at the courts is a subterfuge. If you really need help in drafting an ordinance to ban gas-powered, excessivley noisey amplifiers and generators, please resign your seat on the council and turn in your bar license.

It is also silly for you to blame the press for criticizing your proposed ordinance. Mr. Fairfield, it is not the press who is criticizing your ordinance, it is me. One of the citizens of Kansas City who cares deeply about this city, and the people in it. I am not a wealthy developer, and I do not live in any of the areas your ordinance seeks to "protect".

Finally, you claim that this ordinance is just a starting point for discussion. Even you seem ashamed of what you have drafted. I ask you, do you pledge not to vote for the ordinance you have proposed, now that you are aware of how deeply flawed it is?

I look forward to your response. Again, I thank you for your willingness to address the concerns of a constituent.

Sincerely,

Kansas City is for People - No on Ordinance 070180

When I posted my piece a few days ago about the moral depravity of rich people's representatives calling fellow human beings "visual blight", I didn't really take a position on the underlying ordinance. I am now. Please take a couple moments to contact the members of the committee and tell them that you don't want them enact Proposed Ordinance 070180 - I'll even make it easy for you by providing you with email links to the committee members.

Proposed Ordinance 070180 enacts a $500 fine and up to 6 months in jail for seeking donations in areas where rich people would prefer not to be bothered, defined in this ordinance as "the Country Club Plaza, Westport Shopping District, South Loop Area of the Downtown, and the Zona Rosa Shopping District."

The definition of panhandling is so broad as to ban the Salvation Army bell ringers, the people who sell newspapers on Kansas City Day, and even little Johnny in his Hollister t-shirt asking mommy for money for an ice cream cone at Murray's on a hot summer day. It is a bad idea to enact poorly-drafted legislation that prohibits activities we don't want prohibited. Even though we're assured that it won't be enforced against us, I don't want to hand over to an over-zealous police the legal right to toss me or anyone else in jail for asking a friend for a dollar.

But, we all know that's not who they're really after. They are out to clear the fashionable areas of panhandlers and street performers. The guitarist with the open case. Jerry, asking for his downpayment on a cheeseburger. "Visual blight" rattling a change cup when you leave Barnes & Noble after buying a $4 coffee drink. It makes us uncomfortable. And I can't stand mimes, either.

But, in this instance, the solution is not to bleach our public spaces of any and all character or characters. The solution is to grow up and stop whining. Really, it is okay to walk past a beggar without giving money. We already have laws that make it illegal for them to rob you or beat you up. 070180 won't do anything more to protect you. All it will do is give special breaks to the developers who have made large campaign donations to John Fairfield.

*As promised, here are the email addresses of the members of the committee which will be revisiting this proposal on February 28.
Troy Nash: troy_nash@kcmo.org
John Fairfield: amy_dahlstrom@kcmo.org
Bonnie Sue Cooper: jackie_burton@kcmo.org
Mayor Kay Barnes: mayor@kcmo.org
Saundra McFadden-Weaver: saundra_mcfadden-weaver@kcmo.org

Absentee Ballots for Kansas City Races

I know that this blog has a ginormous following on college campuses across the nation, and that students hailing from Kansas City have used it to keep in touch with my gritty, non-suburban outlook on their hometown.

It would be remiss of me not to use my enormous popularity for civic good, so here's a link to the page where you can get absentee ballots for upcoming Kansas City elections, including the upcoming council primaries (Go Mark Funkhouser, Beth Gottstein, Mark Forsythe, and Cathy Jolly!). Here is a .pdf of the application for the primary, and here is one for the final election. The applications sent in by mail need to be received by the Wednesday before the election - Wednesday, February 21 for the Primary - so go ahead, print them both off today, and get them in the mail.

Both of you.