Let's Talk Politics This Time

Last year about this time, we discussed whether the City Council should make a $2,000,000 donation to the County, in the form of stadium subsidies. I opposed the decision, the Mayor opposed the decision, but the City Council voted 12-1 to give money away.

Since then, the Chiefs and Royals have had horrific seasons with terrible attendance, the City has not had sufficient money to clear streets, our murder rate remains high, a rapist roams Waldo, city employees have been laid off, remaining city workers have had their wages frozen, and we've installed Cathy Jolly's odious red light cameras to generate revenues. All this, and nobody has had the cleverness to point out that the City Councilmembers who voted for the donation should be held accountable for their shocking priorities.

And now the issue is back again.

(As an aside, why don't some of the crack reporters for the Star do an article about the FREE Royals and Chiefs tickets handed out to County and City politicians? Who's sitting in those seats? Are they even being used? I'd be willing to bet there's a story there - either the politicians are handing them out to donors, or they're wasting the tickets. And, as another aside, why doesn't the Star do a story on why, exactly, we even have a Jackson County Sports Authority? How much bureaucracy do we need to pay for simply to keep track of two tenants??)

This year, I'm not even going to bother arguing about the wisdom of stealing $2,000,000 from the city's coffers. My opinion remains clear, but let's look at a much smaller issue.

How do the politics of this debate work this year? Will Funkhouser's suggestion that we end the exemption do him political harm or political good? Will it harm him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and willing to risk our sports franchises? Or will it help him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and being the only one who prefers to spend $2,000,000 on things like police protection, snow removal, and city workers rather than weak athletes?

I'm curious about what people think. A good friend emailed me when the news came out and said that this closes off Funkhouser's path to reelection - "Voters won’t tolerate our Mayor screwing Chiefs and Royals, regardless of the budget shortfalls." He may be right, or he may be wrong, and the decision could be a step on the path toward reelection. (I know a lot of you disagree with a lot of Funkhouser's decisions, and believe that reelection is utterly impossible. That's fine - but, if you can, try to analyze the politics of this one decision. I'd love to know what you think.)

(Update: A commenter claimed that city officials get tickets, but county officials don't. The commenter is mistaken. Under the lease agreements, County officials get a suite and prime parking. See page 16, section 7.4. It's offensive to think that the City Council would steal money from city priorities so that county officials can watch games from a suite.)

Harris Wilder Campaigning for Funkhouser?

The first campaign promise of the 2011 mayoral election has been issued, and it comes from somebody not even running. According to Tony's Kansas City, Harris Wilder has promised to leave Kansas City if Mayor Mark Funkhouser wins reelection in 2011.

Close observers will note that this is not the first time that Mr. Wilder has offered crucial support to the Mayor. When this summer's recall effort failed by a few hundred votes to force an election, it was none other than Harris Wilder who delivered essential complacency to the effort, assuring people that the effort was going to be a ringing success.

Demonstrating his wry and subtle sense of humor, Wilder asserted that a vote for Funkhouser would show that "the voters of Kansas City admit that they don't care about the budget". As treasurer of the recall effort, he somehow generated $33,000 of debt while bringing in only $1,175 in contributions. While Kay Barnes and the developer-funded prior city council managed to spend the our city into a fiscal crisis with larger numbers, Wilder wins hands-down when it comes to percentages.

(All joking aside, Mr. Wilder deserves sincere appreciation for both his passion for his causes - however much I may occasionally think them ill-chosen - and for his willingness to freely speak his mind. I wish him and all who read this a fulfilling 2010.)

Traffic Cops Jogging? - Why Local Control of the Police is a Bad Idea

When you mix Dave Helling's journalistic judgment and the inability of some council members to think before they speak, you wind up with a KC Star front page that makes it clear why we do not want our City Council involved with decision-making for our Police Department.

Several Council members are shocked, simply shocked, that the Police Department bought cars for the officers to use. Their shock is triggered by the unheard-of concept that the Police Department didn't wait until after they needed the cars to purchase and outfit them for regular use, patrolling our streets and keeping us safe.

I suppose, if you're really, really thoughtless (or really, really stretching for news), you could argue that it looks bad that the Police Department spent $2.1 million over a couple budget years to adequately equip our police force with vehicles, at the same time they were complaining that the City Council preferred to donate $2 million for stadiums rather than invest in public safety. The coincidence of similar numbers, plus the eagerness of some Council members to play politics with our safety, makes for an intoxicating mix.

Sadly, some of the Council members are demonstrating their financial illiteracy by arguing that the money spent on cars should have been spent on keeping some of the cops on the street that they themselves idled. There's a difference between capital expenditures and payroll. The "rob Peter to pay Paul" idiocy espoused by some council members goes a long way toward explaining why politically ambitious City Council members make such terrible decisions for our city when it comes to spending money.

Right now, our Police Department is overseen by an appointed board, and City Council members will agree - off the record - that it is one of the best-run departments in the City. But it bothers them that the only control they have over the Police is in approving the budget. As they demonstrate in today's paper, they thirst for the ability to micro-manage the Police Department and misdirect funds to cover their own mistakes. As they also demonstrate in today's paper, such local control would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the citizens of Kansas City.

It was a blow to our collective safety when City Council members chose to fund stadiums instead of police in the last budget cycle. Perhaps they should direct their attention to micro-managing the Royals instead of taking potshots at the Police Department.

Not Gonna Fight It, and I Hope Funk Doesn't, Either . . .

Like our Mayor, I disagree with portions of the budget passed by a 12-1 margin yesterday. Most of the disagreements are relatively minor, but a few of them (deep cuts to the police, $1.7M donation to the County) might be worth screaming about. And I know how to carry the fight to them, too. Call on Funkhouser to veto their scandalous budget and force them to cast their votes twice in favor of hurting our City. Divide the $1.7 million by the 12 votes in favor and ask whether any one of them is worth the $142,000 they are giving to the County, and maybe even try to tie them into the Jackson County Ethics Blackout. Scream about the "Marcason-Hermann Police Cuts" and set up a weekly report on which crimes get assigned to which Council members.

Yeah, when it comes to being a screaming ass, I could write the book. But I'm not going to play that game, though some say I'm pretty good at it.

Fact is, our Council has put in a lot of effort on this budget. I can sit here on the sidelines and Monday morning quarterback all I like, but they are the ones who had to jump into the mudpit and wrestle the beast. If I really, really, really, think I'm absolutely, clairvoyantly right about how to set up a budget and balance the priorities to lead our city forward, I should have either run for office back when they put their reputations and wallets on the line, or I should have been at every public budget meeting and forum offering them my spectacular wisdom.

Instead, I stayed home.

That doesn't mean they're above criticism for foolish decisions (ahem, extending Cauthen) or that I won't complain when they use hard cases to make bad law (ahem, anti-Volunteer ordinance), but there comes a time when a good citizen knows when to shut up. This is one of them. They managed to unify behind a budget that may be imperfect, but it's a sober document reflecting hard choices and deep thought. If I thought they were supporting an insane, irresponsible, ill-thought-out budget, I would be screaming, but nobody can seriously claim their budget is not a realistic attempt to wrestle with our problems.

Funkhouser voted against it, and I can respect his vote. Like him, I personally think the police cuts are too deep, and that when it comes to basic services for all, public safety is job one. Politically, the vote might have been wise, too, since he can now point to that vote as having stood up for citizens and police when the council gave money away to the county and stadiums.

But it's a pretty weak point, and it's been made now. Vetoing the budget will change absolutely nothing, practically or politically.

It's time to move on.

The time for fighting about the budget is over. Ultimately, neither Funkhouser, the City Manager nor any of the Council members won or lost the battle, because it's really about US. As citizens, we have elected representatives that have decided on a budget by a 12-1 margin, and any further fighting about it is game-playing that can only distract our representatives from getting on with the business of overseeing the implementation of that budget.

So, instead of screaming or personal attacks or any other pushback on this budget, I want to thank our City Council. You've worked hard on a budget, and come up with a document that united twelve of you. That's impressive work, and my admiration is sincere. Each of the twelve who voted for the budget worked hard to arrive at something that you think represents Kansas City's best interests, and my points of disagreement are incapable of overshadowing my appreciation.

Fine work, City Council. I hope our Mayor signs on now that the time for fighting is past.

Is the City Council Irrelevant?

Yesterday, Funkhouser went ahead and signed the ordinance extending the TIF package for the Savoy Hotel. While I criticized the extension here yesterday, and I questioned the good faith of the Council, the developer and even the developer's lawyer, it turns out that the only party truly deserving of scorn on this issue is the Council.

The developer, developer's attorney, Funkhouser and the other taxing districts went ahead and worked out a better deal without the Council, rendering irrelevant the Council's attempt to actually harm our city. Actually, as Mark Forsythe correctly pointed out the other day, they had already worked out a better deal before the City Council followed joined in Terry's Terrible Temper Tantrum and, incredibly, approved a worse deal for the city than was already on the table!

Truthfully, they went ahead and approved an ordinance that was worse than the developer had actually agreed to, just because Terry Riley was angry that someone else had negotiated the deal! Is that the sort of person you voted for?

Fortunately, the adults fixed the situation. Through written, good faith agreements apart from the Council, the developer agreed to do the right thing, whether the Council cares about the good of the city or not. Thank goodness Funkhouser worked with them to make it all come out okay.

Meanwhile, city hall observers are left to smirk at the Council's behavior. The more juvenile members of the Council have been claiming lately that the Mayor is "irrelevant", just because they don't talk to him much. Sadly, the Council is becoming Junior High at its worst, with cliques excluding others on the Council and bragging about it to the rest.

If Mark were the sort to join in those games, he would be out whispering to others that the Council is "irrelevant", and snickering at the silly ones who joined in Riley's malfeasance.

But he won't do that.

Instead, he realizes that the Council remains very relevant, and capable of much more mischief in the future. In this instance, he managed to prevent them from bringing as much harm to the City as they attempted, but he knows we are still burdened with Cauthen for a couple years because of their immature behavior. Alas, the City Council may be outsmarted on occasion, but they are not irrelevant. Fortunately, neither is the Mayor.

Tarwater's Tape Exposes Rizzo - Day 98 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

As promised earlier, a videotape of Dan Tarwater grandstanding on the stadium issue may be found here. In watching the performance again, it's hilarious to see Henry Rizzo spring into action and attempt to nail down the legal obligation of the City to make a donation to cover Jackson County's commitment of funds. Rizzo flails away, asking awkward question after awkward question, until, finally, Tarwater admits that there is no legal obligation for the City to divert two million dollars from public safety into suburban entertainment.

Even the County Counselor was dodging Rizzo's questions, not wanting to make him look like a fool in front of everyone. Nice try, but when Rizzo gets on a roll, there's no stopping him.

Sadly, truth may have emerged on the tape when a legislator from outside of Kansas City pointed out that several Kansas City Council members are willing to join in the diversion of funds and sell out Kansas City. Any Council Member who votes to give away $2,000,000 during our budget crisis will demonstrate that s/he is on the side of Henry Rizzo and Dan Tarwater.

Who is Dan Tarwater Working for? - Day 95 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

In the March 9 meeting of the Jackson County Legislature, Dan Tarwater usurped the role of Inter-Governmental committee members and abandoned the economic interests of his constituents. And he accomplished all this misbehavior in only 6 minutes.

An amateur video appeared in the comments of one of my prior posts, but I won't embed the video here because its producer has marred it with a title which engages in childish name-calling.

In the video (I will link to the official video when it is available), Dan Tarwater goes off on a rant about the Mayor's position on stadium financing. While it's kind of disturbing that he has his facts wrong, I wouldn't expect straight talk from someone who has sought to avoid Ethical Home Rule. Sadly, the dishonesty of my County Legislator is neither interesting nor surprising.

What is surprising, though, is that he uses his tirade to attack the interests of his own constituents. Dan Tarwater's district covers a large number of Kansas Citians, who are bearing the burden of double taxation (actually, triple if you count the State money) for the Sports Complex. Those of us in Kansas City pay both as Jackson Countians and as Kansas Citians, to support the same cause.

As a representative of Kansas Citians, Dan Tarwater owes us a full measure of representation. Instead, he abandoned us and got caught up in an inter-governmental spat between the city and the county. In an "us" versus "them" battle, Tarwater foolishly believes that he is on the side of the County as an entity, when, in fact, he should be representing the interests of his constituents. I can understand that as a Jackson County legislator, Tarwater would prefer not having to face the struggle of having to replace the $2,000,000 that the County signed a contract for (but not the City), but not at the cost of having his constituents facing double taxation.

Dan Tarwater should be representing his constituents, not the Legislature.

It's easy to see how someone without intellectual rigor could miss this point, and perhaps that is why Tarwater was not chosen to serve on the Inter-governmental Affairs Committee, and ought not to be injecting himself into that committee's role, anyhow.

Dave Helling - Daily Revisions

Dave Helling claims he needs a translator to understand my criticism of his column entitled "End of $2 million stadium subsidy could let JoCo off the hook for ballparks". Now he's claiming that his column was an attempt to offer a history lesson about a long-gone politician's version of a backroom deal done decades ago.

Sure, Dave.

If it's a history lesson, why the budget analysis (faulty again, but math has always been a weakness for Helling) based on today's dollars?

As for your claims that you weren't saying what you thought of the proposal to end the tax dollar give-away (even though you trotted out every BS argument opposed to it, and neglected to mention that the City has no legal obligation to make the donation), they are as weak as your argument that $2,000,000 dollars is not a lot of money because it shows up in a larger budget (much of which is non-discretionary).

It's not surprising he can't understand my point - he even whines that I misspelled his name when I merely misplaced an apostrophe. Helling's inability to understand what is going on around him is a hallmark of his writing. Whether it's worrying about the collapse of the Democratic party in 2008 or low voter turnout in a record setting year, Helling never seems to need a translator for current events.

But, until yesterday, I had no idea the poor guy doesn't even understand what he himself has written. His post on Monday was a defense of the status quo for stadium donations, and his post on Tuesday was a poor attempt to redefine his current argument as an irrelevant history lesson.

We don't owe $2,000,000

Mark Funkhouser has taken a lot of heat for his proposal that the City should stop paying $2,000,000 out of its general funds to support the Truman Sports Complex. He's absolutely right. We have no contract or law obligating us to make such a staggering gift, and it is insulting to the poor citizens of Kansas City that we would reduce basic services while subsidizing suburban entertainment.

According to news reports, Mike Sanders and others are claiming that if the City of Kansas City does not bail out the stadiums, it will be violating the leases, freeing the Royals and Chiefs to leave the area. That is an absolute lie, and I have the proof.

I have read the lease agreements, and found something amazing. The City of Kansas City did not sign the leases. In fact the agreements (page 13, section 14.a.ii, of the Royals contract and page 21, section 10.5.2(ii)(a) of the Chiefs contract) to be precise) refer to payments by the City as "currently" $2,000,000, which clearly anticipates that the amount could change in the future. Mike Sanders is playing with other people's money.

Kansas City cannot violate a lease it never signed.

I have spent a lot of time looking at the City's budget, and this is not a good year for us to be giving money away when we are under no obligation to do so. In a time when we are looking at cutting the police, closing community centers and jacking up the property tax, it's impossible to justify spending such a huge amount of money for stadiums. We are in the process of firing people - city employees are losing their jobs - and Mike Sanders wants us to spend $2,000,000 to cover an obligation owed by the County??

Will Mike Sanders be willing to walk into the offices of $2,000,000 worth of those City employees and tell them that he'll be thinking of them when he's watching a Chiefs game from the fat-cat suite after parking like a rock star? (Check out page 16, Section 7.4.)

The simple fact is that the City of Kansas City owes no money whatsoever under the leases. If anybody wants to claim that we are so obligated, I would ask that they show us the legal documents that back up their claim.

If, on the other hand, they resort to bogus claims like "Kay Barnes promised . . .", ask them if they really, truly believe that is how government works. Did "Credit Card" Kay Barnes really have the ability to obligate the city with a speech? If you believe that, you really have no idea how the process of government works. If Mark Funkhouser announces in a speech that the City will, without any sort of ordinance or documentation, or signing any contract, give $2,000,000 to me every year forever, because he likes my writing, is the City on the hook?

And don't let them trot out the old "economic engine" argument, either. Of course there are tangential benefits to having the Chiefs and Royals in town, but that's true of any employer or tourist attraction. And a lot of those benefits go to Lee's Summit, Independence, Blue Springs, Liberty and Overland Park. How about if the City of Kansas City matches the tax dollars chipped in by those municipal governments?

Sadly, this is a very difficult budget year. I would love to see the City in a position where it could make a $2,000,000 charitable contribution to help the County live up to its contractual obligations. Especially if we could do that AFTER helping the truly needy in our community, with things like better police protection and codes enforcement. But, really, we cannot do that this year.

Those two millions dollars to not come out of thin air. They represent choices. If we put $2,000,000 into the stadiums, when we are not obligated to do so, we need to take $2,000,000 from somewhere else.

Why should we pay what we do not owe?

Should Equal Rights Apply Only During Economic Good Times

One of my City Councilmembers, Beth Gottstein, has introduced a proposed ordinance to ban discriminatory dress codes in publicly subsidized redevelopment plans and projects. The ordinance is, of course, a reaction to the dress code that the people at the Cordish Companies have used to deny access to the tax-advantaged Power & Light District for people dressed in, shall we say, an "urban" style. Not surprisingly, the ban on ball caps and white t-shirts was sometimes ignored for shall we say, "suburban" looking people.

Beth Gottstein, along with Terry Riley, Mayor Funkhouser and John Sharp, has come out against having our tax dollars subsidizing discrimination. Who could possibly disagree?

Sure enough, the local blogosphere provides an example of someone willing to stand up for prejudice if it's profitable. Over at the Kansas City Post, we are instructed that "As far as the P&L, our primary concern right now should be revenue." The focus should not be on equal rights in a time of economic crisis, it should be on revenue. "I would like to see the numbers on how many potential patrons are turned away, and what the projected lost revenue is. I doubt it's even a drop in the bucket." It's not that they're too black, it's that they're not green enough?

I'm grateful that Councilmember Gottstein has found a revenue-neutral way to help our city become a better, more welcoming place. Her dedication to building bridges and reaching out to all facets of our community has been an important part of her character for years - long before we were fortunate enough to gain her leadership on the Council.

Some things remain more important than revenue, even during times of economic crisis. While some among us feel that "Hard economic times call for singular focus," leaders like Gottstein realize that good people don't turn on each other during hard economic times. Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed out that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Thank you, Beth, for helping Kansas City stand in a goood place at a time of challenge. That's why we voted for you.

PIMBY?

Yael Abouhalkah had a funny observation in his blog post about the proposal to stop siphoning money away from taxpayers to support the Costco TIF Plan.

Jan Marcason, a sharp and well-intentioned City Council member, also questioned what happened last week.

Marcason lives in the Southmoreland neighborhood in the 4th District and supports its housing repair program.

While everyone has heard the term "Not In My Back Yard", this presents an unusual case of "Please In My Back Yard". The elegant Southmoreland neighborhood has enjoyed access to free money, and nobody can really blame them for enjoying the opportunity.

But if you spend a little time driving around the old Northeast, or the East side, it's hard to understand why tax dollars should be funding housing repair in such a posh area. The Southmoreland website is a cheery, welcoming place, offering "Up to $10,000 or more matching grants to fix up your house."

Meanwhile, other neighborhoods can't get their weeds cut or their illegal tire dumps cleared.

Southmoreland is fortunate to be on the PIMBY side of the financial seesaw, while others struggle for basic services. Southmoreland doesn't want to share, and they have a brave and articulate councilmember to stand up and fight for the privileges they have enjoyed for over a decade.

Is it a fair fight?

How Many Dollars are Lost at Municipal Court?

A couple months ago, I met a Republican friend for lunch and conversation at a downtown restaurant. Conversation ran a little long, and, when I got back to my car, my meter had expired and I had a $28.50 parking ticket waiting for me. My mistake, no complaint.

Then, to make things worse, I neglected to pay my ticket on time, so I received notice that I owed an additional $10. Fair enough.

So, finally, I got online to pay my debt to society. Much to my surprise, I typed in all the required information and was only charged the original $28.50. Being a law-abiding citizen (and one who doesn't want to get hauled into jail for $10 after a traffic stop) I even went back and looked for a way to pay the extra $10. No way! The website insisted I was even-steven, and offered no way of questioning its satisfaction. I even tried to call the Court to make certain we were okay with each other, but gave up after racking up 23 minutes of being kept on hold.

Is this the way a city in budget crisis acts? Waiving late fees without even being asked to do so?

Frankly, I think the original parking ticket ought to be $50. If I want to play parking ticket roulette with the traffic cops, they ought to make me put a little more skin in the game. Then, I think the late charge ought to be another $25. Call it a voluntary tax for procrastination.

But, either way, how many thousands of dollars are being lost because the municipal court is not diligent in collecting fees from scofflaws like me? Whose responsibility is this, and how long has this been going on?

Mayor Funkhouser Addresses the Budget

I thought Funkhouser's letter concerning the Budget was extremely well-done, and a good example of the kind of straight talk and dedication to priorities that won him the office. Hilariously, and I kind of think she might have been joking, Jan Marcason accused the letter of "set[ting] up a tension that didn’t need to be there." Umm, yeah, Jan, that letter managed to bring tension to a peaceful, loving City Hall, right? Too funny!

Rather than trying to "spin" the letter, though, I'll just post it and let everyone read it for themselves.

DATE: February 12, 2009

TO: City Councilmembers

FROM: Mayor Mark Funkhouser

SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed FY 2009-10 Budget


The Kansas City Charter requires that I deliver to the City Council a copy of the proposed budget along with my comments. This letter fulfills that requirement.

As we approached this budget season I thought of Sir Winston Churchill who said, "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

This budget does not give us the tools to do the job.

On January 15th I was handed the first draft of the budget. I distributed copies of that budget to the members of the City Council and to the press. Here is that budget.

On February 2nd, a second budget was delivered to my office. Here is a copy of that budget.

As you can plainly see, there is a significant difference in these two documents. As you will hear, those differences caused me to look at this budget differently.

You have heard me say before that I am committed to returning Kansas City’s focus to its residents. This budget should put Kansas City's families first. We need to protect our families and be compassionate about their circumstances. The way to do that is to be smart with their money by providing them with an accountable and transparent budget.

The budget delivered to me fails to do that and is therefore unacceptable.

In my conversations with individual members of the City Council, not one has indicated that he or she is prepared to vote for this budget as submitted. There are good reasons for this. This budget is unbalanced, unaccountable, and full of gimmicks and smokescreens. It doesn't put Kansas City families first.

Protection

This budget proposes cuts to the Police Department that will undo ten years of progress to improve services. Chief Corwin tells me it will force the layoff of more than 200 police personnel and take dozens of officers off the streets. This is unacceptable.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe in their homes. Marie Sims is a mother of four children, one of whom was born deaf and blind. She works two jobs. Marie Sims' eastside home has been burglarized twice in three months.

Marie Sims does not feel safe in her home. Still, Marie Sims told the Kansas City Star that police officers who helped her were "her angels."

By taking police off of the street, families like the Sims will feel even less safe.

Kansas City's families deserve to feel safe on the streets. In December, more than 150 police officers went door to door to track down dozens of people being sought by the homicide unit. That sweep solved the murder of Napoleon Malone, who was killed while on a smoke break from his job. Mr. Malone should have been safe on our streets.

Kansas City's families deserve to be safe in their neighborhoods. The Waldo Heights apartments used to be a frequent spot for calls about shots fired, drug dealing, burglary, robberies and a host of other problems. Officers responded there on a daily basis. But a concentrated effort by Officer Jeff Peacock has helped clean up the area. A reduction in police officers would jeopardize that success.

Kansas City's parents need to know their children are safe at school. Eastgate Middle School's neighborhood is one of the highest crime spots in the Northland. Parents at the school are relieved that the police department launched a program that places a Community Action Officer in their school. Cutting funding for police threatens that successful program.

The budget presented to us cuts Police Department funding by $10 million. That cut would hurt our families and does the opposite of what they have told us they want us to do.

If Kansas City is to prosper the Sims family, Waldo Heights residents and Eastgate Middle School students must be safe.

We have invested in our police department and it has paid off. Response times have been cut in half. Crime rates have dropped substantially. And citizen perception of safety has increased. If we cut funding now, we jeopardize these gains.

Simply put, cutting police is a short-term budget fix that does not match our residents' priorities, and I will not accept it.

Compassion

This budget would nearly double the city’s property tax levy to fully fund general obligation debt service. It estimates that this would generate $8 million annually. In these hard times, I will not burden working families with an 86% increase in one of their city property taxes.

I recently received a heartbreaking letter from one of my residents about this proposed tax increase. When I called him, he told me about his struggle as a senior citizen trying to make ends meet. Every dollar we add to his tax burden is one less dollar he can spend on food and heating. How could we support such a tax on our senior citizens?

We need to ask ourselves what this tax would really pay for. Should we use this tax to pay the $7.2 million shortfall on debt for the Power and Light district? Should we use it to pay for luxury condos or a convention hotel? Should we use it to continue to subsidize downtown TIF developers? It is unconscionable to almost double this tax on residents when they wouldn't even get a vote.

I must reject this proposal.


Accountability and Transparency

This budget fails Kansas City families with its lack of accountability. This is unacceptable to me.

In 2004 when they approved bonds to pay for capital improvements, the voters were promised that those bonds would not result in a tax increase. We can not break our promises to the voters.

Likewise, when the City asked its residents to approve a public safety sales tax, it promised the tax would result in 20 more policemen a year. We can not break our promise to our residents.

To do so would undermine citizen trust in their government. Any portion of this budget that fails to fulfill our word to Kansas City's families must be rejected.

Today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of my heroes, Abraham Lincoln. He said "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." This budget fails to bring the real facts. This is unacceptable.

The submitted budget contains $14.5 million in unspecified cuts to city departments. In reality these are cuts in basic services that will show up unannounced during the fiscal year, much like last year's weed problem. These cuts are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Likewise, the budget transmittal letter states "A reduction in workforce anticipates the elimination of 300-400 vacant and filled positions in General Fund supported funds." However, these position reductions do not show up in the personnel schedules, because they are not really lay offs – they are financial targets that department heads are supposed to achieve. If the department head can find the money elsewhere he or she can avoid layoffs. Therefore, the number of lay offs is not clear. Worse, it is not clear what services are being cut.

All across Kansas City, families are sitting down at their kitchen tables and reworking their family budgets. If they used this budget as a guide, they would cut a little from everything, including their necessities. I would submit that most Kansas City families know enough to prioritize their expenses. They cut their luxury items, like eating out, while leaving alone the necessities, like buying formula for their babies.

This budget's gimmickry fails our duty to those responsible families. It makes no difficult choices.

A budget is a plan for action. This budget has no plan, only soft promises to make cuts. This council must reject this attempt to submit an unaccountable budget.


Additional Tools Required

Therefore, I am sending this budget back with my recommendations.

By February 26, I expect a document to be delivered that provides us with a balanced budget without cutting the Police Department, without increasing property taxes, and without making unspecified cuts.

We owe it to the Kansas City families we are charged to take care of to know exactly what cuts will be made, how many actual jobs will be lost, and what services will be curtailed.

Last year this City Council passed a budget that included eliminating 140 positions, but management cut only about 80 positions. Only about 18 people left the payroll. Using financial targets instead of position reductions means that the cuts in expenditures are not structural. There is no transparency for Kansas City families.

Once I receive a balanced, accountable budget with no gimmicks or smokescreens, I will review it and make my final recommendations on March 5th.

Albert Einstein said, "In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.”

These difficult times are an opportunity for Kansas City to reshape how the city works for our residents. We can only do that by starting our budget discussions with honesty and the desire to make hard choices. As Churchill said, we need the tools to finish the job.

Ladies and gentleman, once we have those tools it will be time to roll up our sleeves and finish this work.


cc: City Manager Wayne Cauthen

Only Fools and Editorialists Believe "Forever" Promises from Politicians

. . . what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money.
- On the Waterfront

Yael Abouhalkah says that property taxes are off limits as Kansas City struggles to correct a structurally imbalanced budget. His "reasoning" is that taxpayers were promised in brochures, nonbinding resolutions and advocacy "fact sheets" from years ago that property taxes would not go up.

Perhaps Abouhalkah and the Star ought to pay the shortfall. If voters honestly believed that prior politicians and printers of brochures could tie the hands of future politicians, then the fault lies with our press. When they should have been forcing clear, specific answers as to where the money would come from and how future councils could be bound by promises of politicians past, they were issuing gushy editorials endorsing every tax and bond issue that a credit crazy council could create.

If voters didn't realize that the numbers didn't add up, it's because the Star failed to do its job. If voters didn't realize that civic salesmen were selling snake oil when they claimed that we could have shiny projects without paying for them, it's because the Star failed to do its job.

As I look at the budget, I'm not yet convinced that increasing property taxes is a good direction to go. But for Yael Abouhalkah to claim that property taxes are off the table because he chose to be a cheerleader rather than a journalist is unconvincing, and a little repulsive.

It's kind of amusing that Abouhalkah dug out the old brochures and "fact sheets" - none of which ever had the force of law or claimed to be impartial - to support his bleating about old promises. I don't have a file cabinet full of old paper, so I did a quick Google search that turned up his editorial claiming that 2004 bond supporters' claims that there would be no tax increase was "true". I also found this gem of objectivity after Credit Card Kay's bond issue passed: "The entire Kansas City region will benefit from her dogged efforts to overcome tough obstacles and improve the city's future.... Even Barnes' critics have to acknowledge one fact: The mayor knows how to get things done."

The Kansas City Star in general and Yael Abouhalkah in particular have failed the voters of Kansas City. Now, serious people are trying to correct mistakes that the Star could and should have prevented. I hope Mr. Abouhalkah understands if they choose to ignore him this time around.

Looking at the Earnings Tax

I've been paying a lot of attention to the Kansas City Budget lately, and trying to see how we can pay for basic services, attract and retain good jobs, and become a better, safer city. I suspect that the budget for the coming year will focus mostly on the first goal I listed, but there simply isn't going to be a way to make significant strides on the other two without additional investment. In future years, we need to consider the revenue side of the equation.

What about graduating the Earnings Tax, coupled with a tax credit to negate the tax on our urban core and low-income workers? I've been told that 55% of the earnings tax is paid by nonresidents, that compliance is fairly high, and most is paid in through corporate withholding. (There are tweaks that need to be made to compliance and withholding which could have a good impact on revenue, but let's set that aside for the current discussion.)

Just to toss out some numbers, while acknowledging that I do not have the data to fine tune the proposal and come up with real numbers, let's say that we say that we will tax income under $40,000/year at the current 1% rate, and income over $40,000 at 1.5%. At the same time, we will establish a refundable tax credit of $400 for Kansas City residents. That would mean that if you earn $40,000, your tax bill would be $400, and your refund would be $400, so you would not pay any earnings tax. If you live outside Kansas City, you would continue to pay your $400, just like you do today.

If you earn $50,000, you would pay tax of $550 (1% on $40,000 and 1.5% on the amount over $40,000), so, if you live in Kansas City, you'd be getting a reduction of $350 when you count the tax credit, and if you live outside of Kansas City, you would only face a $50 tax increase.

Of course, all these numbers would need to be fine-tuned by someone who has access to the data on how much is paid by income levels. My gut feel is that these numbers would work out okay, but I really don't know that for certain. Perhaps the break-off point would need to be $30,000, with a $300 tax credit.

But tell me what you think of the concept. The advantages, as I see them, are that it would give employed workers a reason to choose Kansas City instead of suburbs. It would give the urban core a little more spending money, which could help generate some trickle up economics where it's needed most. On the other hand, it could cause some mobile businesses to relocate to the suburbs, to dodge the tax (to the extent that such businesses have not already left). It would also be somewhat harder to administer than it is currently, though I doubt that would be a huge hurdle.

Put Gitmo in KCMO - Budget Problems solved!

"Intelligent, well-intentioned" Kansas Citians (and the rest of us, too) are facing an $85 million collar budgetary shortfall in the upcoming year. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and relocate the prisoners. Also meanwhile, the County and City are in talks about merging their prison, but wondering where they will find the money.

Does it really take an apparently unintelligent, poorly-intentioned person like me to tie this all together?

Bring the terrorists to Kansas City! Get federal dollars to build a brand-spanking new prison facility in Swope Park to house everyone from hardened terrorists to housing code scofflaws. This project would have access to the kind of black-budget, military/industrial complex dollars that would make Halliburton executives twitchy. I'm talking big time stuff. Obama has made a global promise to close Gitmo, so we have him over a barrel. Money will not be an object. Dare to dream.

After construction, we have the benefit of long-term, high-paying jobs. How long is the "Global War on Terror" going to last? Given that terrorism, the enemy, has been with us for countless generations, I think we would be wise to anchor our economy on an industry that has even more staying power than greeting cards and pick-up trucks. Flocks of the nation's best and most highly-trained prison guards and, umm, "inquisitors" (think Jack Bauer) would relocate to Kansas City. Our paltry $85 million shortfall would disappear quicker than the permanent Republican majority.

Think about the spin-off effects. Hundreds of hard-core, bad-ass prison guards living around Swope Park. Do you really think that the Kansas City gangs will survive the influx of new residents accustomed to dealing with al-Qaeda? Our penny-ante "tough guys" will flee the city when they realize they have zero street cred in a city that houses the big time.

Some may be wondering why I suggested placing the facility in Swope Park. Of course, the focus on east side development is a part of it, but there's an even better reason. The Zoo.

We have a facility already build that is designed to keep lions, tigers, kangaroos, gorillas and even birds caged in. It would be the perfect Prison Yard, and finally generate the kind of visitor traffic the thing needs to survive. (Technically, putting prisoners on display violates the Geneva Conventions, but, in the face of an economic meltdown for Kansas City, I see what Alberto Gonzales meant when he called the conventions "quaint", and, really, putting the prisoners on display will prevent them from being tortured. Isn't displaying them the lesser of two evils? Especially when you figure in the tourist dollars?)

I know, I know, that some wimps are going to whine that having such dangerous people in our fair city is dangerous. Already, the Senators of Kansas and California are whining about how terrible it would be to put the alleged terrorists in their midst.

Gutless NIMBY punks. Missourians are made of sterner stuff.

Even if we weren't, we're pretty well situated to remain safe from terrorist prison breaks. They can't get to us by sea. If they want to come by air, they have to fly over hundreds or thousands of miles of our air space, and we have Whiteman Air Force Base practically next door to scramble the jets. If they come by land, Missouri is situated so they have to go through multiple states' jurisdictions to get to us, so countless jurisdictions will get a crack at them before they even get here. Go ahead and take a look at the 8 states that border us. While I abhor the thought of racial profiling, do you really think that terrorists from Wherever-istan aren't going to stand out on their road trip here? Especially if they raise suspicions by eschewing McRib sandwiches on their highway stops?

It's crunch time for Kansas City, and innovative solutions are necessary. Even if Yael Abouhalkah does not list me among the intelligent and well-intentioned citizens of Kansas City, I'm determined to do my best.

Put the Gitmo in KCMO!