Seems Unhinged

I wish I had some insight to offer about today's Council action, purporting to extend Cauthen's contract. Seems illegal to me, and it certainly seems like bad judgment. Seems like some people went way out of their way to be ugly today. Seems like they focused a whole lot more on vitriol and vengeance than on the good of the city.

I hope things aren't what they seem.

Well-Played, Mayor's Office

I was surprised to see that Hearne Christopher scored the interview with everybody's favorite target for talk, Gloria Squitiro. Surely, given the incessant chatter among city hall gossips about the First Lady, the interview should have gone to one of the more serious people at the Star . . .

Upon reflection, though, it seems absolutely perfect that those who choose to focus on the sideshows of negativity while ignoring the strengths and accomplishments of the Funkhouser administration are now chattering about a freaking gossip columnist. It's a not-so-subtle clue that those who salivate at the thought of slamming Squitiro are simple-minded, frivolous gossips.

For an administration that gets accused (by those same people) of a lack of sophistication, I think we just saw a masterwork of putting the issue onto the proper agenda.

Bravo!

Mayor Said "Son You're Gonna Drive Me To Drinkin' if You Don't Start Drivin' that Hot. Rod. Lincoln."

Buying a car is personal. In our car-centered culture, what you drive is a statement to the world about who you are. My lovely wife just got a new car (Beetle Convertible), and I would never have dreamed of picking the color, the options, or anything other than the radio presets. And I've been married to her for 25 years this June, and the car is officially half mine. Even though it's "our car", we both know it's "her car", and she ought to be able to pick out her own car.

But Kay Barnes (who I doubt has even made out with Funkhouser, much less been married to him) decided she should make the choice of what kind of car Mark Funkhouser will have as mayor. And she screwed it up royally. Faced with the prospect of riding in the "silver birch" Lincoln Town Car she picked out for him and paid $700/month for ($100 over the car allowance - but money's no object for Country Club Kay), he said "no thanks" and has opted to keep on driving his 10 year-old Corolla.

Things might have gone differently if she had chosen a cooler car. Maybe a Crossfire like Glazer drives. Or maybe she could have used her big business contacts to hook him up with one of those new Camaros GM has planned. Sweet. A Mustang Convertible would have been a fine sled for the Funk, especially if she tricked it out with a fine sound system and thumping bass. Personally, I would have picked out a mini-van with tinted windows for the Mayor, driven it down to the Crossroads, and told the artists down there to make that vehicle into a statement. Yeah, that's how I'd make Mark roll.

But a freaking Lincoln Town Car?! Silver Birch? Did she really think a guy who answers to "Funk" would want to ride around in a geriatric jalopy like that?

Personally, I think it was pay-back. Kay hated Mark throughout the election, and did her best to get him defeated. Despite (or maybe because of?) her slander and frothing attacks, though, he won. So, the day after the election, she tried to score some revenge by sticking his lanky ass into the lamest car she could possibly find in the metro area. I'll bet she even made them put curb feelers on it, and special-ordered a mono sound system that only gets AM radio.

Hurrah for Funk's telling her to take her car and shove it. He'll face enough challenges as Mayor without having to ride around in a car picked out by someone who hates him.

In Defense of the Brooks Campaign - 10/10 Hindsight

As mentioned below, the pundits are having a field day criticizing the Brooks campaign for coming up 1010 votes short in Tuesdays election. Typical is Steve Kraske, who is beginning to resemble that guy in the Fed Ex commercials who is always wrong, and is shocked to learn they don't get "French benefits". He wrote:

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign. The mayor pro tem’s campaign at times appeared invisible. So much ammunition was at his disposal, such as the former city auditor’s call to privatize the water department or raise trash fees, not to mention his startling one-time advocacy for school vouchers.

All that’s fair game. It didn’t have to mean “going negative.” But Brooks, a former cop, only flicked a jab or two at forums and his campaign, led by venerable tough guy Pat Gray, forgot to step on the gas.

“It never got off the ground,” said former City Councilwoman Teresa Loar of Brooks’ campaign.

From the start, this was Brooks’ campaign to win. He had every advantage: the money, the campaign team, the big-time endorsements, the name identification, the title of mayor pro tem, the unwavering backing of Barnes and decades of community service in his hip pocket.

But that wasn’t enough to sufficiently motivate his base. His numbers paled in comparison to another prominent black politician, Emanuel Cleaver. As good a guy as Al Brooks is, as much as he’s contributed going back decades in this community, he’s no Cleaver.

His campaign gave him no help in making up the difference.

I've got to call bullshit here.

While it's true that Brooks and Funkhouser both ran remarkably positive campaigns, and it's true that, all things being equal, it might have grabbed some attention if Brooks had gone negative, it is not true that such a move would have resulted in an uptick of votes for Brooks.

Such thinking assumes that the Funkhouser campaign would have remained static. Sure, I could beat the hell out of Mike Tyson, if I got to throw all the punches. Who knows how Funkhouser would have responded? I'm certainly not going to go negative now, but I suspect Funkhouser could have responded with similar, fact-based material that would have weakened Brooks' positive image.

Those who are decrying Brooks for running a clean, positive campaign, and claiming they could have done better, are using sloppy logic. Yes, some pointed criticism of certain audits drawn out of context could have changed the landscape, but the response from the Funkhouser campaign would have changed the landscape further. Perhaps the changed world would have resulted in a Brooks victory, but such a result is by no means certain.

The only thing that would have been absolutely certain is that Kansas City would have had an uglier Mayors race.

To claim that Brooks ran a bad campaign because he didn't go negative and came up 1010 votes short is to engage in utterly false hindsight. The race was run on the high road, and both candidates were wise and honorable to stay up there.

Back When We Were Foolish

Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to Mark Funkhouser on November 22, the day that I heard he was going to make a run for the Mayor's office:

Thank you for being willing to take on the job. You'll be a great mayor. I don't have access to polls and I haven't talked to the "insiders" (like the ones who were so confident that Wheeler would win), but I can see you coming in first with a plurality in the primary, and riding a populist wave. I think you're going to wake up with a huge job on your hands come March 28th.

From his response:

I like your analysis of the situation a lot. I heard a political insider say I'd finish 7th or 8th and my response was "I'm going to win this thing."

So, I was a couple hundred voters off from him winning the plurality in the primary, but that's not too bad an analysis for an amateur. Meanwhile, the "serious" and "informed" "experts" were providing "analysis" that said things like Funkhouser was a 10:1 long-shot to even make it out of the primary. The "experts" told us things like "Voters won't care about TIF - it's too complex a message," and "You can't win with that name." I cannot count the number of times I had people smarter than me tell me that this was a fool's errand and a waste of time. But when I looked around the campaign committee and saw people like Joe Miller and Jeff Simon and the Wolfs and Ruth Bates - I saw good solid people full of hope, and it was contagious.

Even today, the know-it-alls are insisting they know it all. From Kraske's column this mornning:

Funkhouser, who padded a fairly stodgy persona with his “The Funk” moniker, pulled off a win even though he was outspent 2-1 and operated the most unorthodox campaign I’ve ever covered.

No campaign manager. No phone banks. No fancy high-dollar consultants. No focus groups. No polls. Just a few good folks down at the “doublewide,” as the campaign cleverly referred to its 18th and Summit trailer-turned-campaign headquarters.

And gaudy orange-orange, for gosh sakes, as a trademark campaign color.

On 10 different levels, it shouldn’t have worked. And it may not have worked had not Brooks run such a milquetoast campaign.

The column then goes on to lay out how the brilliant Steve Kraske would have won the race for Brooks.

Yeah, whatever.

My point in writing all this is not to claim I'm a political genius, because I'm not. And it's certainly not to gloat - my respect for Alvin Brooks remains untarnished.

But what I am trying to say is that the emperor/experts aren't wearing any clothes. The "experts" who say that money is everything are wrong. The "experts" who say that endorsements make the difference are wrong. The "experts" who say that "serious" campaigns have self-proclaimed wizards like Pat Gray or Jeff Roe running them are wrong. They are lying to you.

If Funkhouser can win, we can get some Latino representation on the Council, maybe even Rita Valenciano. If Funkhouser can win, Mark Forsythe and Deth Im can win future races.

That's not to say that money, endorsements and experienced campaign consultants won't help. It's not like saving Tinkerbell - merely wishing and clapping won't do it. And even if things go well, there are more losers than winners in Kansas City politics. But it can be done, and don't let the people who are supposed to be smarter than you about these things tell you otherwise.

Every now and then, a naive amateur has more sense than Steve Kraske.

FUNKY Town

Now get out and vote for the man who drives Barnes crazy!!!!!!!

Call me a cab . . .

Among the countless details I've learned about our two mayoral candidates, today's Star brings the innocuous but potentially upsetting detail that Alvin Brooks does his jogging at midnight.

I don't know about you, but, before today, if I were driving home at midnight and saw Alvin Brooks jogging, I'd pull over and call a cab to drive my drunk ass home.

Briarcliff TIF Pig Kristl Abuses His Seat on the Parks Commission

Tim Kristl is notorious for his, umm, moral flexibility in juggling many roles to benefit himself and his clients at the expense of Kansas Citians. Not surprisingly, he is one of the biggest TIF pigs behind the "Briarcliff TIF Boondoggle", the absolute nadir of Kay Barnes' free-spending cronyism.

In today's Kansas City Star, Kristl abused his seat on the Kansas City Parks Commission to lash out at Funkhouser once again. Tim, we understand that you have been feeding at the TIF trough for years, and that you fear that Funkhouser is going to bring some sanity to a system which has made you insanely wealthy. We understand how frightened you must be, knowing that the TIF audit Kay Barnes and Al Brooks are hiding is going to expose you and your cohorts when it finally comes to light. We understand that your history of seeking money from boards you are serving on has lowered your standards of personal behavior.

But get this straight, Mr. Kristl. Your duty as a member of the Parks & Recreation Board of Commissioners is "To improve the quality of life by providing recreational, leisure and aesthetic opportunities for all citizens and by conserving and enhancing the environment." Your duty does not include lying about what Funkhouser's audits have accomplished. Your duty does not include taking advantage of your position to try to attack the man who will be ending your ride on the gravy train.

One of the best things about seeing Funkhouser win this election will be watching him drive snakes like Tim Kristl from positions of influence and back under the rocks where they belong.

Is the Barnes TIF Tax-Give-Away Train About to Leave the Station?

One of the fascinating aspects of this mayoral contest is the inability of Mayor Kay Barnes to cope with the fact that she is finished. She is twisted up inside about the fact that Mark Funkhouser is likely to win, instead of her chosen Mayor pro tem, Alvin Brooks. She's ranting to anyone who will listen, and rumor has it that she is willing to say or do absolutely anything to prevent a new voice in City Hall.

Tony's Kansas City reports on what must have been one of the oddest scenes in Kansas City's strange political history. Kay Barnes held a secret gathering of "her people" to warn them that the gravy train for TIF pigs would end if Mark Funkhouser wins the election. Tony reports (apparently via the KC Prime Buzz, where the Star puts the material it doesn't believe Star subscribers deserve),

Mayor Kay Barnes endorsed Alvin Brooks for mayor at a private meeting she held last Thursday with a select group of KC business leaders.

Barnes secretively arranged the 8 a.m. breakfast at the Downtown Marriott, which Brooks attended.

In her invitation on Feb. 28 to about two dozen people, Barnes wrote:

"I wish to discuss with you my thoughts on the general election which will be held only 27 days from now. I am concerned that the progress we have achieved, in large part because of your efforts, is now in jeopardy."

Among the persons invited by Barnes: Lawyers Herb Kohn, Jack Craft, David Fenley, Jerry Riffel, Michael T. White and Mike Burke.

What kind of panicked insanity is this? Each of those lawyers is a TIF tax give-away lawyer - each of those lawyers makes hundreds of thousands of dollars by shifting tax dollars from our potholes and police into the pockets of wealthy developers.

Why are all these TIF tax give-away lawyers so excited to have Alvin Brooks step into Barnes' shoes? Because Alvin Brooks, in his 8 years as council person and Mayor pro tem, has never, ever voted against a single TIF give-away. Not a single one. Every time that some developer came to him and said "Rather than having tax money go toward helping Kansas Citians, I want you to give that money to me," Alvin was there to say "Yes". When 88% of tax dollars were going to the wealthiest districts, Alvin was there to ignore the East side in favor of the wealthy.

Did Alvin Brooks stand up for the poor when the Briarcliff zillionaires wanted tax dollars to line their pockets? Of course not. Instead, he stood up at breakfast with Kay to ask those TIF lawyers for campaign contributions.

Voter Turnout - Is the Glass 19% Full, or 81% Empty?

The "experts" were wrong again, but you won't find anyone pointing it out, or even admitting it, in the Star.

Remember this?

Election Commissioner Brian Newby said the reduction is driven in part by expected low voter turnout. He’s hoping 10 percent of the county’s 345,000 registered voters cast ballots, but history suggests turnout could be lower. The last countywide spring primary in 1997 drew less than 6 percent of registered voters.

The "experts" were claiming that we would have fewer than 34,500 voters in Jackson County, and they used that as an excuse to shut down polling places, helping to make their prophecy self-fulfilling.

Well, they were wrong, even though the Star today includes references to "low turn-out" rather than "unexpectedly high turn-out". By my count, 43,871 Jackson Countians cast ballots in the primary. That's over 12.5% of Jackson Countians voting. while that is a low number, that is more than double the "less than 6%" who voted in the last countywide spring primary.

Is the glass 12.5% full, or 87.5% empty? In this case, where the Star and the "experts" were assuring us the glass would by drier than ever, I think someone needs to point out that they were wrong. And who knows how many might have voted if the KCEB hadn't given Kansas City citizens completely wrong information on where to vote?

Update: Thanks to ubiquitous commenter "Anonymous", who pointed out that the quotation I included above actually comes from Johnson County, Kansas. Kansas City, Missouri actually did quite a bit better than I represented - 44034 of 235759 voters cast ballots - 19%. In the 2003 primary, only 9.6% of the voters cast ballots. More than twice as many voters cast ballots this time around - and yet the Star is reporting a low turn-out. So-called "experts" assured me that only 50,000 voters would cast votes the primary, but, counting Platte and Clay counties, 57692 ballots got turned - more than 15% over predictions.

At the Flea Market last night

The evening started out the way the campaign began - kind of a ragtag, polyglot collection of true-believers and political neophytes. Many of us wore orange, but a lot of us hadn't gotten the word, so we didn't even look like a spiffy campaign group. But it was a warm and friendly group of nervously optimistic people who gathered to crack wise and wait for numbers at the Flea Market. Not a tie to be seen, except for Mark's orange one.

Flash forward a few hours and several Boulevard Irish Ales . . .

Holy Crap! It really happened! We're in the general! And the people who weren't there at the beginning start rolling in. Jerry Riffel is chatting with a reporter. Mike Sanders and Charlie Wheeler have both come by. Kansas City's political insiders crowd around the star of the hour, Kansas City's next mayor.

Joe Miller is on a bar stool off to the side, and I finally get to meet Allie. She's charming and happy and way too good for Joe, but that's the way most successful couples are.

We have a whole new campaign now - 4 weeks in a race between two vastly different people. I've always liked Alvin Brooks, and I hope that nothing over the next 28 days changes my mind.

I bet there'll be more ties at the next watch party . . .

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.

Riederer Slimed

A week and a day ago, I wrote about a slimey postcard attacking mayoral candidate Mark Funkhouser. Today, a very similar postcard with similarly poor production values came out, attacking Al Riederer:

This piece of junk was mailed to anti-LGBT and anti-Choice voters in Kansas City.

Obviously, Mark Funkhouser is the best candidate in the mayoral race, and Riederer has embarrassed himself by running a completely bogus faux-outsider campaign funded by lawyers who need to appear before his wife/judge. But I have to stand up for Al and say that if your only reason to vote for a different candidate is because of this sort of bigotry and hatred, please reconsider your vote.

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,

Ouch

I was at a fundraiser this evening, waiting in line at the bar, when a nice elderly lady turned around, looked me up and down and politely asked, "Mr. Glover?"

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

Another Funny Thing About Jeff Roe

In light of the grisly record of defeat his clients have suffered in recent elections, it's no huge surprise that Jeff Roe is so much better at promoting himself than he is at promoting his clients. As an example, google - "jeff roe" 2007 - and then google - "becky nace" 2007. Take a guess who wins . . .

Funk Slimed - Do I Smell a Roe? Or Not?

I received the following post card in the mail yesterday. The front included no identification of who produced or paid for it - it is a classic political hit piece put out by a coward who cannot get his or her facts straight.



Stuff like this makes me wonder what the people who worked on it and paid for it are thinking. Do you really think something like this will have an effect? I agree that the public is gullible, but this is too visually ugly and too factually wrong to be convincing. Dumb voters will be put off by the lousy production values, and smart voters will know that Kansas City has a dedicated tax to fund indigent health care. Even if Mark wanted to deny people health care (and anyone who knows him knows that is utterly ridiculous), it's not his choice.

But, really, does the producer of junk like this have no conscience at all? S/he knows that s/he is lying, and also knows that s/he is violating the law by sending out something like this without identification. Is it worth it? Do you feel like you're doing a good thing? Do you feel like you're helping Kansas City?

Of course, the obvious suspect is Jeff Roe, who is well-known to resort to lies and innuendo in sliming opponents. He's also known for being ineffective, so the fact that this was so poorly done seems to show Jeff's reverse midas touch.

But the funny thing is, having an amoral creep like Jeff Roe involved in the race gives cover for anyone else to act just like him. If you're with another candidate's camp, you're pretty safe to get as slimey as you like, because everyone will assume that the slime comes from the Nace campaign. Having someone like Jeff Roe involved in local politics lowers the ethical standards not just of Nace, but of everyone who is willing to engage in his tactics.

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.

Funk's in the Hunt!

Today's Kansas City Star confirms that Mark Funkhouser and Alvin Brooks are leading the pack in the Kansas City mayoral race. That is HUGE, because the primary eliminates all but the top two candidates for the race, and then the two finalists square off man against man (figuratively speaking, of course - it could be Shields or Nace) in a race to be decided on March 27.

It doesn't matter too much who actually wins in February, because the whole shooting match starts over when the supporters of the also-rans choose their mayor. It's hard not to believe that Funkhouser, with his unique advantage of being a political outsider with a more thorough knowledge of the inside than anybody else, will not emerge as the most attractive (did I just call Funkhouser attractive?!) candidate.

I know, I know, it's just a survey, and Mark needs money if he's really going to make it. Toward that end, I am taking the liberty of stealing the following image from his website - come on out and let's have some Funk!

After all the money I spent on my Master of Public Administration degree, it's good to know I can get a Doctorate of Funk for only $150!