“Lets go to the track and play on the monkey bars”

Quoted by JohnnyBravo on purposebuilt.org

Let me start out by saying that the “sale” of the track is not a decision that the owners want to make. They are not sell-outs, nor are they willingly abandoning the racing community. They are as deeply tied to racing, if not more, than anyone here.

In a nutshell, this was a political move. It may be one person, it may be a combination of people, but there are only 3 major players who have the kind of clout around KC to force the sale of the track.

1. Claire McCaskill. She owns approximately 27 acres (I believe) in the immediate vicinity of the track. My understanding is that she has been unable to market or sell her property for a significant profit because of the proximity of her property to the race track. That might make a good motive to lean on the city to force the track out of operation. And you can’t forget councilwoman Circo…who also happens to be a fundraiser for Claire McCaskill. Interesting how that works out, isn’t it?

2. Christine Kemper. She owns one of the houses on the hill on the other side of Noland Road, across from the track. The bulk of the track’s problems started immediately upon her taking possession of that home. Many of you will recall the huge debacle involving the storage shed that Kemper and Porrevecchio tried to use as leverage to shut down the track. Huge hearing before the BZA. City Hall was packed. While she was successful in costing the track a lot of money in unnecessary “improvements” and attorneys’ fees and ultimately restricting the days and hours of the track’s operation, she could not shut the track down. But don’t for a second think she has let it go.

3. Ms. Ulmer who owns all of the property up on the hill, east of the track. After her husband passed away, she has been trying to develop that property by herself. Rumor has it that nobody is thrilled about assisting in the development of that property because it’s right above the track.

Now which one(s) of these people are behind the political pressure to force the sale of the track is anyone’s guess. But there is a jerk in the woodpile somewhere.

Next, while what the city may try to claim is that this is a voluntary sale, nothing could be further from the truth. The city had been trying to buy the track for a while, but could never come up with any money. So the track entered into negotiations with another buyer (who would actually keep the track there, but would result in an infusion of cash for the track). After finding out that the current owners had found a buyer that would keep the track where it is, the city sent a letter threatening the condemnation of the land. Guess what that did to the sale of the property.

While under threat of condemnation, the property is dead. You can’t sell it. You can’t rezone it. And it makes no sense to spend any more money on it, because it may be taken from you at any time. So that’s the first dirty trick the city pulled. Just the threat of condemnation crushed any chance the track had of selling to someone who could improve the place and devalued the purchase price to any other interested buyer.

Then the city, through its codes administration, began really putting the pressure on the owners to “fix” certain alleged violations at the track. “You can’t have any electricity in your new outbuilding.” Ok. Then it was, “You MUST run electricity to the new outbuilding.” Ok. Then it was, “You have to repave the parking lot near the outbuilding”. Why? That wasn’t on the approved plans? “DO IT!” Then it was, “you need illuminated exit signs in the building.” Why? Those weren’t on the approved plans and this is a storage shed. It’s not a public building as defined by the codes. “Do it or we’ll fine you, etc, etc,”

So the city started making it clear that if the owners didn’t sell, at a low ball price which the city could afford, they’d just come out there every single day and find something to ticket them for. Take away their vending permit. Something. The city very clearly sent the message, ‘If you don’t give us this land, we’ll make your life a living hell. And if you make us go through the condemnation process, we’ll make sure you are offered pennies on the dollar for the property and that after you’ve paid your lawyers, you’ll walk away with next to nothing.”

Welcome to Kansas City politics. And you thought it was bad during the Cleaver days?

And so far, the city has failed and refused to provide any assistance in finding another location for the racetrack. The owners even agreed to take less money in exchange for help finding a replacement property and some time to operate while they built the new facility. The city was NOT willing to give them another season, or even another day. The city is not paying what the property is worth, but it’s paying more for the property just to shut it down NOW and to not have to find a new place. If that gives you any idea of the real motivations behind this move.

So you, the tax payers, while still getting a deal on the property, could have had it even cheaper if the city would have given the owners more time and helped them find a new place. But the city would rather pay more to run a business out of town immediately. Feel free to be pissed aS fuark about that, too.

So the city will have a completely worthless, non-income generating nuisance that it will have to take care of in place of a money earning, property tax paying business.

But hey, at least some of the more powerful women in the city will be able to line their pockets with cash after it’s gone. And when it comes down to it, isn’t being a politician really about using your power for your own profit?

Those are about all of the details I can provide at this time. I’m waiting for the press release to be issued by the city, to see how they “spin” this thing, but what I just told you is pretty dang accurate (other than my speculation about who is behind the string pulling). The city is RUNNING THE TRACK OUT OF TOWN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

The track has been blackmailed, bullied and beaten into selling. HOWEVER, you can still lean on your elected officials to either (a) undo the deal and refuse to fund the purchase; or (b) at a minimum, assist the owners in finding a new location for the track.

Those are the facts as I believe them to be.

http://www.purposebuilt.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43312&page=6

https://www.facebook.com/notes/kalynn-clements/lets-go-to-the-track-and-play-on-the-monkey-bars/10150913341040501

***********************************************************

This sure make KCMO look like a great place to start a business, eh?  These are the tactics they will resort to if they don’t like you or want your business gone.  Instead of helping bring jobs to KC, City Council likes to keep them away.

A few years ago the City began requiring taxi cab owners to post info about whether or not they accepted credit cards. It seems it was thought a great benefit to spare passengers the need to enquire about payment before riding half way across town.  The Kansas City Star put it this way: ”The city had imposed a law in 2009 that encouraged cabs to accept plastic and required them to display information if they did not. But investigators found cabs that weren’t complying with that law, and customers were complaining about having to carry cash to pay their fares.” But now the ante has been upped: the Council has passed another law requiring all cabs to take credit cards. To this THE STAR trumpets: ” Taxi cab customers will no longer have to carry large wads of cash in Kansas City.”

Excuse me, but have we not all lived through decades of bellyaching about Kansas City’s poor public transportation? Have we not endured Clay Chastain’s repeated attempts to push light rail on an unwilling voting populace, for just that reason? Thankfully, the light rail plan that finally did pass a vote in 2006 would have been such an obvious economic disaster, even our City Council was unable to bring themselves to enact it. Many of us knew that a better way existed anyway: Why not improve the bus lines and eliminate the barriers to entry for new transportation providers. Entrepreneurs might find new ways to solve our transportation needs without running deficits or requiring federal handouts.

So now, along with a still-unsatisfactory transportation system, we find ourselves in the midst of an economic downturn the likes the country has not seen since the great depression. And just as the City has begun posturing as if wishing to take great pains to remove the barriers for small business, we are treated to this—the eye watering irony of a ridiculous law which can only do one thing: make it harder to be a new independent taxi cab service provider in Kansas City.

Such stories, related by shell shocked business people, is one of the purposes of meetings like the one I attended last Monday evening (October 17), put on by the new Special Committee on Small Business. These meetings are held at commercial venues around the Metro in order to make it easier for owners who find it difficult to get downtown, or simply have an understandable aversion to setting foot in City Hall. Committee members say they want to collect testimony in an effort to reduce obstacles to the growth of small business in the Metro Area.

According to committee members, the process for getting approval to open Faulkner’s Ranch doors would be less lengthy today than it was in 2008. This is because paperwork no longer needs to wait on one desk for signing before proceeding to another. Additionally, communication problems like those experienced by the Faulkners with City Hall are said to have been greatly reduced with the creation of Bizcare, a customer service center across from City Hall which opened in 2009.

Beyond such process improvements, and the periodic off-site small business meetings, the City has launched the website KC Momentum. It’s an implementation of a third-party collaborative web app called MindMixer, described by its creators as a “virtual town-hall.” The purpose of KC Momentum is to provide direct community input via a slick, easy to use, digital forum. Additionally, Scott Talyor described a yet-to-be-developed online automation system for getting businesses off the ground and maintaining permits, inspections, etc. He said that in the near future, it would likely be unnecessary for many small business owners to make a trip to City Hall to start or maintain their businesses.

How likely is it that the work of the Small Business Committee will make a real difference? The idea of making government efficient and free of hassles is ultimately a losing battle since there are no market forces to keep it moving in the right direction. Instead, it has only one ever-present incentive: take the path of least resistance and provide less  value while increasing revenue via taxation. That’s leaving aside the out-and-out antagonism to small business displayed in many actions taken by the City Council: like the just-passed law requiring all taxi services to accept credit cards, amounting to a huge barrier-to-entry into the public transportation sector.

Short of the elimination of regulatory bureaucracy in KC altogether, this author suspects that online-based automation (like KC Momentum and the proposed future implementations) is a decent way to go—provided the software is any good. At least it could eliminate the need for entrepreneurs to have to interact with bureaucratic zombies who want to hassle them and send them on wild goose chases. Of course, good software can’t to be taken for granted: the same inherent problems that plague other government endeavors, make it inevitable that software government produces will likely suck too. But third-party web solutions like MindMixer, designed by entrepreneurs, will be far better than solutions cities might develop themselves.

In a real sense, turnkey solutions like MindMixer, represent a way the market is coming to its own aid in combating the natural inertia of government.

If you would like to join LRP in disseminating this information throughout Kansas City tomorrow (September 3, 2010), be at The Brick (1727 McGee) at 6:30pm.  Join the anti-fluoride crusade!!!

The headline blared from The Kansas City Star in December: “KC ethics commission faces busy year.” But of all the adjectives that could describe the watchdog’s 2010, “busy” reads like a dark joke.

Designed to keep watch over city government, the ethics commission in Kansas City, Missouri, has yet to meet in 2010. Its first meeting is scheduled for August 25, but that might get canceled. A commission requires commissioners, and four of the seven members resigned in the wake of the recent “reve­lation” — that’s what the Star called it, anyway — that some of them had taken sides in the upcoming mayoral race.

City leaders want you to believe that change is in the works. The City Council passed an ordinance last month that bars ethics commissioners from supporting city candidates. “This is good government here,” Councilman Terry Riley announced.

But the new rules put a coat of Bondo on a totaled system. The ethics commission is intended to serve as a check against conflicts of interest, campaign-finance irregularities and other foul play. Historically, though, it has kept a quiet watch. Composed of volunteers, limited in its authority and susceptible to political pressure, the ethics commission has done a better job of padding résumés than keeping politicians in line. “It’s never worked,” Councilman Ed Ford says. “I can’t remember it ever being an effective body.”

But its ineffectiveness has reached a new low. Since 2008, the ethics commission has done nothing but abandon one investigation and not act on another.

Part of the blame rests with Lajuana Counts, who chairs what remains of the commission. A federal prosecutor, Counts has largely been an invisible figure since Mayor Mark Funkhouser made her chairwoman in mid-2008. (The mayor appoints all the members; terms last five years.) She has convened precisely one meeting, prompting questions about her level of commitment. “I don’t know how much time she has to give to it,” Marsha Campbell, a former commissioner, says.

Counts says she relies on the Office of the City Attorney to alert her to issues that need to be addressed. “Nothing comes to me directly, or to the commission members,” she says. “It goes through the city. I don’t know about anything until they let me know.”

But the commission doesn’t have to work so passively. Two years ago, the City Council asked the city auditor to send all his reports to the ethics commission. The commission can now launch investigations based on those reports, which analyze the city’s practices.

The mayor and the City Council also refer matters to the ethics commission. And two recent referrals fell into a black hole.

In 2008, Councilwoman Deb Hermann asked the ethics commission to investigate how the city had selected a company to provide copiers and other document services. The selection process was a mess, and Riley was right in the middle of it, steering the contract in the direction of a campaign contributor. “Call me before u vote. Please!!” he wrote in an e-mail to a member of the committee that selected the vendor.

The ethics commission met February 5, 2008, to discuss the copier contract. The decision to look into the role played by Riley, who is black, broke down along color lines. Four white commissioners said his actions deserved scrutiny; two black members disagreed.

Despite the majority’s sentiment, the investigation never took off. Not long after the commission decided to take action, its chairman, former City Attorney Walter O’Toole, resigned. O’Toole didn’t say why he stepped down, but the racially divided vote likely played a role in his decision.

After O’Toole’s departure, the investigation ground to a halt. Counts replaced him and could have taken it up herself. You can imagine her sitting down with City Attorney Galen Beaufort, the commission’s main contact at City Hall, for a chat about unfinished business. Instead, 16 months went by before she called her first meeting, and when she did, the copier incident wasn’t on the agenda. “I don’t know what happened with it,” Counts says.

Dan Porrevecchio, a commissioner who voted for the review of the copier contract, still thinks it needed to be examined. “What happened?” he asks. Former commissioner Campbell says, “It was a hanging chad.”

The copier contract isn’t the only opportunity that the commission has mishandled in recent years. In late 2008, Ford sponsored a resolution asking the commission to look at Funkhouser’s handling of an open-records request, as well as the role that the mayor’s former communications director, Joe Miller, played in a political campaign.

It took almost a year, but the ethics commission finally decided at its November 2009 meeting — again, the first called by Counts in 16 months — that the allegations deserved a review. The city’s internal auditor, Roy Greenway, prepared a 600-page report about the activities in the mayor’s office. (Greenway has a reputation for being — how do I put it? — thorough.) But nine months later, not a single witness has been called to testify because the commission hasn’t met since then. The Funk allegations are on the agenda for the August 25 meeting, which Counts acknowledges is unlikely to take place.

Counts says it’s a challenge to find times for commissioners to meet. But other boards and commissions in Kansas City find a way. The citizen-led Public Improvements Advisory Committee makes recommendations on how to spend the 1-cent sales tax for capital projects. The group meets weekly at times during the year. “Bottom line is, a commission that doesn’t meet can’t fulfill its obligations,” Ford says.

Regular meetings won’t solve everything. The ethics commission has other, built-in inadequacies. For one thing, it lacks a big hammer. It can’t issue fines or send people to prison. “About the only thing we can do is embarrass someone,” Campbell says.

The “reforms” that the City Council passed last month may not help. The ethics commission may even become less effective, if that’s possible. The new restrictions on political activity, Porrevecchio says, are “well-intentioned but shortsighted.”

Porrevecchio says the ethics commission needs people with a grasp of political nuance. Otherwise, the commission may find itself being led down rat holes. “Anybody can say anything about anybody and cause an investigation to occur,” he says. Campbell says the ethics commission “has potential for great mischief.”

Trouble is, the people who can tell a legitimate complaint from the caterwauling of cranks and opportunists tend to be the same people who give to candidates or get involved in political clubs. Porrevecchio belongs to the Citizens Association, which endorses candidates. Campbell made a campaign contribution to Sly James, who’s running for mayor. Both stepped down from the ethics commission after the council enacted the new rules.

Jay Stock, a former ethics commissioner who was “caught” supporting Hermann, notes that council members routinely vote on issues involving campaign donors.

“What’s the difference?” he asks. “Where does the difference lie?”

The difference is that the City Council makes the rules.

http://www.pitch.com/2010-08-12/news/kansas-city-ethics-commission/

Mayor Mark Funkhouser kept up the pressure Tuesday for his irresponsible idea to strip millions of dollars out of the public safety sales tax and use the money to hire more police officers.Good thing that City Council member Cathy Jolly and others are pushing back. They don’t want to make any decision on how to use the tax until the police board weighs in next week. That makes excellent sense, especially since Police Chief Jim Corwin has adamantly refused to include new officers in his plan for using sales tax dollars.Instead, he wants to use most of the public safety funds for capital improvements, such as building new North and East patrols and a new crime lab.But on Tuesday, Funkhouser sent out a release imploring his “friends” to come to the council’s Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee meeting Wednesday and lobby the council to approve money for the officers.Jolly, who is chair of the panel, says she does not plan to take any vote on the matter on Wednesday. Instead, testimony will be taken but the committee will hold the matter – as it should – until next Wednesday, she says.Presumably, by then, the police board will have made its decision on what it would like to include in the tax. Right now, there’s a good bet that zero funding will be included for new officers. Police officials say the department can add more officers with the general fund – not depending on a sun-setted sales tax that could go up or down in revenues every year.So next Wednesday’s planned joint committee meeting with police board members could be the key to what goes on the ballot in November.Funkhouser, naturally, will keep pushing his bad idea. Let’s hope the police board on which the mayor sits and the council don’t approve it. mailTell a friend fb Share on Facebook twitterTweet thisComments: 1. D h: — Jul 27, 2010 3:57 p.m. They really need to start thinking what is going to happen when the E-tax go’s away after November . 2. Nukman: — Jul 27, 2010 3:59 p.m. A couple of weeks ago someone tried to break into my house while my wife was home alone. She called 911 and it took the police from between 7 and 10 minutes to respond. I believe that this was the same individual who broke into a house just south of 103rd Street in Leawood and raped a ninty year old woman. If the Leawood police had been as slow as the KCMO police my wife could have been another victim. KCMO needs more police officers on the street.

via Jolly pushes back on bad police plan | Midwest Voices.

Council members and more than a dozen community leaders debated the contentious issue of redistricting, which the city charter indicates should occur before the next city general election in March 2011.

The charter says the city council must draw new district lines when a third consecutive general election would be conducted with the same districts, and those districts have already been used for the 2003 and 2007 elections.

But most city council members and many of the community representatives weren’t happy about that, saying this is the worst possible time to try to redraw the lines — just as a new election season is heating up.

“It’s not good government for us to sit here and draw these lines with everyone’s re-election looming,” Councilwoman Cathy Jolly said.

Critics of redistricting at this time said they don’t have enough reliable racial and ethnic demographic data to redraw the council districts in a way that will give all residents fair representation to make sure they’re not disenfranchising minority voting blocs. They also complained that the city will just have to redo the whole thing when formal 2010 census data become available, probably in April 2011.

But Councilman Ed Ford said the council needs to follow the charter and confront the issue.

“It makes more sense to bite the bullet and do this now,” Ford said. “What other sections of the charter do you want to ignore that you find inconvenient?”

Several Northland community leaders noted that the population has grown most dramatically north of the river in the past decade. It’s time, they said, to shrink those districts geographically, while increasing the size of other districts, to make sure the voting representation is fair and to make sure that the money that the city distributes between the six districts is split equitably.

The council late Thursday directed the city manager and city attorney to develop alternatives for redistricting, including the possibility of an advisory committee, and to report back by next Thursday.

via KC redistricting becomes contentious issue with council members, community leaders – KansasCity.com.

Tracy Ward of the Liberty Restoration Project, an anti-Big-Brother organization best known for protesting the city’s red-light cameras, has been trying to schedule a meeting with Councilwoman Cathy Jolly since April 14. Ward and the LRP oppose the red-light cameras as well as the proposed use of Shotspotter technology, in which microphones are placed in high-crime locations to trace the sound of a gunshot to its origin.

But after three months of requests, Ward has yet to see the councilwoman face-to-face. As chairwoman of the Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee, Jolly has repeatedly voiced her support for the cameras and the Shotspotter. Additionally, Ward lives in Jolly’s district. It’s only natural for Ward to request a meeting with Jolly to try to sway her to the LRP’s point of view.

On April 14, Ward e-mailed Jolly’s chief staff assistant, Lisa Sturgeon:

Hello Lisa, I met with you today about visiting with Cathy Jolly sometime next week. Could you possibly give me a few available times and we can hopefully work something out? Thanks so much for your time. In Liberty, Tracy Ward.

After receiving no response, she tried again on April 20:

Hello Lisa, I spoke with you last week and also emailed you regarding setting up a meeting with Cathy Jolly. Is it possible to meet her this week on Thursday or Friday? I know you stated Monday through Thursday worked best, but I’m free on Friday as well. Gabe Grider will also be attending the meeting with me. Please let me know if that will work. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tracy Ward.

Ward (right) and Catherine Bleish just want to talk.

Sturgeon responded April 20:

You mentioned that you wanted to discuss Shotspotter with Councilwoman Jolly. She informed me that there is a federal grant that is being applied for through the Green Impact Zone through Congressman Cleaver’s office and that his office would actually be the point of contact for that project.

On April 21, Ward wrote,

Thank you for getting back to me, Lisa. However, I would still like to set up a time to visit with Mrs. Jolly. I am one of her constituents and I do reside in her district. Please let me know if Friday or sometime next week would work. Thank you so very much for your time.
Sincerely, Tracy Ward

Sturgeon wrote back April 23 to tell Ward that the councilwoman had an opening the morning of Wednesday, May 28. Ward agreed to the date and time and planned on meeting Jolly, but Sturgeon canceled the meeting via e-mail on May 14.

Sorry Tracy. That time is no longer open due to the homeless task force that has been scheduled that day. What about Wed. the 19th at 1:00 p.m.?

Ward agreed to the new time, but on May 18, Sturgeon asked to change it up again, this time to 11 a.m. the same day. The new time didn’t work for Ward, who asked for Jolly’s next availability. After some back-and-forth, Sturgeon wrote, “Tracy we are trying to squeeze this in this week, but I can look at other dates next week. Can you tell me what it is in regard to, so I’ll know how much time to schedule?”

Ward responded, “I think we can cover all of our issues in about 30 minutes. Next week would be fine, if she’s available.” After receiving no response for two weeks, Ward asked again for a meeting time.

Sturgeon responded on July 14:

Tracy, Please let me know what the topic of discussion for the meeting [is] and who will be attending.

Ward explained in an e-mail that she wanted to talk about alternative means for public safety other than surveillance, and that the time of the meeting would determine who else from the LRP would attend. Sturgeon sent back two more suggested meeting times, and Ward chose the option of Thursday, July 22, listing two other LRP members who would also be there.

On Wednesday, Ward received another cancellation from Jolly, via Sturgeon. “However, I can respond to your requests for information if you will give me a call,” Sturgeon wrote.

Ward is understandably frustrated — she’s met with Mayor Mark Funkhouser, Missouri state Sen. Jolie Justus and her state representative, Michael Brown, with no problem. “I just don’t get why [Jolly's] so inaccessible,” she tells The Pitch.

We’ve left a message for Sturgeon and will update this post when we hear back.

I should have had this story first but I’ve been busy posting election stuff. Still, I think Nadia did a great job clucking away on the news item.

The basics:

IT TAKES ABOUT A HALF DOZEN ATTEMPTS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE 6TH DISTRICT TO GET A MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL LADY CATHY JOLLY!!!

Tracy Ward and her buddy Cathrine of the Liberty Restoration Project have been attempting to get a meeting with Council Lady Cathy Jolly since April and so far they’ve had no luck. There are returned e-mails, appointments canceled and a LOT of SCREENING in order to talk to these politically motivated ladies. Heck, I was even going emerge from my basement dwelling to check out the sitch.

Sadly, the Council Lady hasn’t been able to sit down at a meeting that would have taken no more than 20 minutes with folks who sacrifice a lot of time on the local political scene.

Today’s example: CHECK OUT THE LRP TAKING TO THE STREET IN ORDER TO TALK RED LIGHT CAMERAS AND FLUORIDE IN THE DRINKING WATER!!!

Good stuff . . . But TKC knows that only well-funded special interests get real face time . . . And that’s what makes Ward’s potential Council Run VERY interesting.

Posted by Tony at 7/23/2010 09:19:00 AM

Today we educated KC about fluoride and red light cameras!

We asked questions about citizens taping police, red light traffic cameras, fluoride in water, how accessible is your city council rep, and urban farming.

Over 100 fliers passed out in 2 hours!!!!!!!!

New LRP potential members AND we educated some snobby rich folks who would have rather not looked at the folks handing out the info LOL

GOOD TIMES, we’re all sweaty hot, though.

http://donttreadoncat.com/2010/07/lrp-man-on-the-street-flier-distro/