“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.

Occupy KC demonstrators at Penn Valley Park with IOU/USA sculpture in the background.

While not all of the stated goals of the occupy movement jibe with Libertarian ideas for how to improve our economic and political problems, there is much common ground and libertarians are increasingly getting involved. For instance, this Saturday, a large group of Occupy KC demonstrators marched to Troost Park and back to Penn Valley park where the occupiers have staked their ground between the Federal Reserve and Liberty Memorial. Representatives of Liberty Restoration Project, along with KMBZ Radio personalities, Landmine Billy and Granny Major, were there to provide hotdogs, sodas, chips and candy for the marchers upon their return.

Also present to show support for the marchers were We Are Change KC and Young Americans for Liberty, from Lawrence. Both groups lent a hand distributing food and discussing issues with other “occupiers” throughout the evening. After sunset, LRP projected economics and liberty related videos from a small projector attached to a laptop for the edification of die-hard occupiers remaining after dark.

This was the second march local Occupy forces have undertaken to raise awareness for their cause to reclaim democracy from corporate and financial elites. As with the previous march on October 5, it was done in coordination with the original New York demonstration and with other local demonstrations throughout the country. This time, however, the movement reached yet further with protests taking place in the UK, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.

If you are not familiar with the movement, here is how the original Occupy Wall Street demonstration officially describes itself:

Occupy Wall Street is a people powered movement that began on September 17, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s Financial District, and has spread to over 100 cities in the United States and actions in over 1,500 cities globally. #OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Spain, Greece, Italy and the UK, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people who are writing the rules of the global economy are imposing an agenda of neoliberalism and economic inequality that is foreclosing our future.

Official Occupy Wall Street website: http://occupywallst.org/

Official Occupy KC site: http://occupykc.com/

http://www.operationdefuse.com/

We are currently raising money to send activists to visit more fusion centers and police state conferences and also to initiate and finalize open records requests to every fusion center in the country.

If you appreciate our mission please consider donating to Operation Defuse. We are a strictly volunteer grassroots operation and every dollar goes a long way.

Be sure to check out Operation Defuse’s YouTube Channel with more original footage not seen on the show! Check back, more videos to be posted soon.

OPERATION DEFUSE

Mission: Empower the public so they may better understand the police/surveillance state by educating them about fusion centers and the role they play in both militarizing and nationalizing our police forces.

Vision: A harmonious relationship between law enforcement and the people that promotes peace while respecting liberty.

Methodology: Throughout the year 2010 representatives from TAG and LRP will travel across the United States visiting America’s fusion centers, holding public forums, leading activist trainings and meeting with representatives and local law enforcement.

To our liberty-loving friends all over the State of Missouri!

Come out for a fun evening with some of the best and brightest champions for liberty in the Midwest. Activists you’ve heard about from Saint Louis, Kansas City and southern parts of the state, (as well as Columbia) will literally meet in the middle this coming Friday, November 5th.

For those looking to carpool, split travel costs, or share lodging for the night, please post below and try to make arrangements. Couch space is available but limited!  http://www.regencydowntown.com/

Bring yourself, bring a friend, bring ideas, bring issues to work on, just be there if you can!!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=169162263110143

At its Executive Committee meeting on October 17^th, the Missouri LP discussed the merits of the various initiatives on the statewide ballot for the Nov 2^nd election and issues the following statement:

Constitutional Amendment 1: Oppose While it does not seem illogical, in principle, that counties with a charter form of government elect their county assessor, an amendment to the Constitution with language that exempts “counties with a population between 600,001-699,999” specifically to exempt Jackson County strikes us as absurd. What will happen when the population of Jackson County grows or shrinks to be outside this range, will the Constitution be amended again? We feel that Constitutional amendments should be broad based, not targeted to some specific group or locale.

Constitutional Amendment 2: Oppose This proposed amendment, which affects an extremely small number of people strikes us as blatant political pandering. Arguments can be made to exempt many less fortunate groups from property taxes, so why this one? We would prefer to see property taxes lowered or eliminated across the board, which would create real economic prosperity. Increased economic prosperity will create more opportunities and resources for the less fortunate citizens of Missouri.

Constitutional Amendment 3: Support We support any broad-based initiative to reduce or eliminate the tax burden or prohibit the imposition of new taxes.

Proposition A: Support We are opposed to earnings taxes and find them to be even more unjust when imposed without the people’s vote. Although the governments of St. Louis and Kansas City are unfortunately, yet predictably, addicted to their respective earnings taxes, the 10-year phase out period should provide a more than adequate adjustment period. The negative economic consequences of taxes on income are well known, however the negative effects develop over time. Unfortunately, politicians generally lack the fiscal discipline to act in the best long term interest, particularly when there is the enticement of an immediate rush of revenue. Therefore, the explicit prohibition of new city earnings taxes will help protect the general welfare of the citizens of Missouri from greedy politicians.

Proposition B: Oppose Like most people, we find animal cruelty appalling. However, as Libertarians, we are opposed to the passage of ever more regulations that will have a broad-based and negative effect on legitimate businesses. There are already extensive laws on the books prohibiting animal cruelty. See http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/10/would-prop-b-really-help.html for a comparison of the language of the current law and Proposition B. We are also concerned that the real agenda is to eliminate dog breeding and ultimately animal agriculture, as these are stated objectives of some of the groups providing the money behind this initiative. Virtually all regulations sound good on their face, however, in reality they simply end up driving up the cost of business, through paperwork, bureaucracy and red tape, most of which accomplishes nothing toward the stated objective. This cost must ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices Meanwhile, the small minority of ‘bad actors’ continue to circumvent the laws.

Here’s a link to the KC election ballot:

http://kceb.org/pdf/SAMPLE_BALLOT.pdf

and here’s a link to the judges to see if they should be retained or not:

http://www.mobar.org/data/judges10/jackson.htm

by Jessica Machetta on August 3, 2010

in Uncategorized

Proposition C, also known as the Health Care Freedom Act, has been approved by Missouri voters.

Prop C was placed on the ballot as a referendum after being passed by the Missouri Legislature and authorizes Missourians to opt out of the federal healthcare plan passed by Congress earlier this year.

With 2,681 of 3,354 precincts reporting, 72.7 percent of Missouri voters approved the measure.

“Tonight is a historic night,” said Lt. Governor Peter Kinder. “Missourians have the distinction of being the first Americans to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health care takeover. From Massachusetts to Virginia to Missouri, voters are rejecting the extreme liberal agenda being forced upon our nation by an out-of-control federal government.”

Kinder has filed a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Missouri, claiming the federal healthcare plan is unconstitutional.

Clearly the measure is split down party lines.

Kinder is the only Republican to hold statewide office. Democrats Gov. Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster did not support the move.

Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Republican, fostered the bill through the Missouri Senate.

“Missourians have sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions,” she said. “For more than a year, Americans have taken to the streets to protest the federal government’s irresponsible agenda. Washington liberals didn’t listen when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care bill — but they can’t help but hear us now.”

Cunningham noted that Prop C does present a conflict with federal law and the case will likey come down to a decision by the Supreme Court.

She also noted that Prop C does not prevent Missourians from participating in the federal healthcare system, it simply gives them a choice.

Four other states will vote on a similar measure in upcoming primaries.

via Missourians approve Prop C, the Health Care Freedom Act.

We want to thank all those amazing organizations who have helped Missouri break free from the shackles of the federal government on this issue.  We realize that with the passage of this issue, the fight is not truly over.  However, today we won a major battle and have told the federal government to back off.

ST. CHARLES, Mo. — For all its symbolic import, the first plebiscite on the Obama health care law, to be held Tuesday in Missouri, seems likely to be a low-turnout affair among an electorate dominated by Republican primary voters and conservative activists.

State Senators Jim Lembke and Jane Cunningham watching a commercial for Proposition C at a fund-raiser last week.

Missouri is the first of at least three states with ballot measures this year aimed at nullifying the federal health care law by invalidating its keystone provision, the requirement that most people obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty. A recent statewide poll in Missouri found that not even likely Democratic voters could muster a majority against the proposition.

The referendum on the measure, known as Proposition C, is seen as an organizational test for the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives in a swing state that President Obama lost narrowly in 2008 and that has since moved measurably away from him.

But the campaign has been a low-key affair, with no television advertising, debates or celebrity Facebook endorsements. Leading Democrats, from Mr. Obama to Gov. Jay Nixon, have kept their distance, seeing little to be gained by contesting what strategists dismiss as a Republican straw poll with a foregone conclusion.

The most competitive elections in Tuesday’s primary are on the Republican side, meaning turnout should be higher among those with natural sympathies for Proposition C. There are 291 Republicans competing for state and federal office, compared with 208 Democrats.

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, who is herself expected to coast to the Democratic nomination for United States Senate, predicted that only 24 percent of voters would turn out.

Of 20 Missourians interviewed at random in St. Louis last week, only five knew that there was a primary on Tuesday, much less a referendum on the health care law.

“Really, there is?” said Jeff R. Swaney, 53, a lawyer from Chesterfield, a St. Louis suburb. “I wasn’t even aware it was on the ballot. I haven’t seen any commercials.”

Supporters of Proposition C are hoping for a substantial victory that will convey a message of discontent with expansive federal government and rally other states and candidates to press the issue through the fall campaign.

“This is a throw-down by the states, saying, ‘Not in our state, you don’t,’ ” State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican, said at a rally for the proposition here on Wednesday. “This health care thing is just a vehicle, a vehicle for the debate about what is the role of the federal government and what is the role of the states.”

No grass-roots organization has formed to oppose the measure, and the unions and consumer groups that lobbied for the federal health care law have steered clear. Mr. Obama did not take time to denounce Proposition C when he visited Missouri in early June.

“The proposition will have no legal standing, so I don’t know why there’d be a reason to focus on it,” said Brian B. Zuzenak, executive director of the Missouri Democratic Party. “From the beginning, we’ve said it’s meaningless and unconstitutional. At best, it’s a ploy by the Republicans to get their base excited.”

Comparable measures have already been enacted by legislatures in five states — Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia — according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that is pushing the initiatives. Arizona and Oklahoma are scheduled to vote in the November general election on state constitutional amendments to nullify the insurance requirement. A judge in Florida tossed a similar constitutional amendment off that state’s ballot last week, sayings its language was too overtly political.

The nullification laws are expected to have little immediate practical impact, because the insurance requirement does not take effect until 2014. And by then, the federal courts are likely to have had much to say about whether the new health care law is constitutional, and thus beyond the reach of state efforts to invalidate it.

Elected officials in 22 states, almost all Republicans, have filed lawsuits challenging the so-called individual insurance mandate. Among them, Virginia has made a direct claim that the federal law conflicts with its own 2010 statute, which asserts that residents of the commonwealth cannot be compelled to obtain health insurance.

The most recent lawsuit was filed individually by Missouri’s lieutenant governor, Peter D. Kinder, a Republican who acted without the support of Governor Nixon.

In the Missouri referendum, voters will be asked whether state law — not the State Constitution — should be amended to “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”

In May, Republican legislators, who control both houses, cut a deal with Democrats to put the question on the ballot. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster if the referendum was held during the August primary rather than the November general election, said State Senator Jane Cunningham, a Republican who sponsored the bill. With an open seat for the Senate on the line, the Democrats did not want to encourage heavy turnout among conservatives in November.

The legislation passed each chamber comfortably, winning a number of Democratic votes. By addressing the issue as a statutory ballot measure, the lawmakers managed to bypass Mr. Nixon, whose signature would otherwise be needed.

A spokesman for Mr. Nixon declined to reveal how the governor would vote on the referendum. The governor acknowledges that the health care law is not popular in his state, but has said he will work to maximize its benefits for Missouri. “This isn’t about protest,” he said recently. “It’s about progress.”

Support for the proposition is being rallied by Missourians for Health Care Freedom, which formed as an outgrowth of the legislative debate. The group raised $75,000 as of July 24, enough for radio advertising, yard signs and get-out-the-vote telephone banks, but not enough for television commercials.

“Do you think Washington knows what’s best for you and your family?” asks the group’s radio ad, which is playing on Christian and conservative talk stations.

The referendum is supported by the Missouri State Medical Association. The only organized opposition — beyond a Facebook page — has been mounted by the Missouri Hospital Association, which has spent more than $400,000 to send mailings to hundreds of thousands of homes, according to financial disclosure reports. The brochures warn that approval of Proposition C could burden hospitals, and their insured patients, with the cost of uncompensated care for people without health coverage.

“There’s an argument that a vote for Proposition C is a vote in support of freeloaders,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the hospital association.

Mr. Dillon said there was no corresponding get-out-the-vote operation.

“I don’t even have someone I can direct people to,” he said. “There really isn’t an organized opposition. Frankly, we don’t want it perceived that we’re opposing it. But we certainly want people to understand that their choice has some implications.”
A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page A14 of the New York edition.

Proposition C provides Missourians a voice in the future of their own health care.

A “Yes” vote on Proposition C preserves your present right to keep your own health insurance plan or choose any other private plan or no plan without being penalized for that choice.  It also allows Missourians to select the federal government designed and approved insurance plan.

A “No” vote on Proposition C would limit Missourians to only a government designed and approved plan.

The ballot language reads:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

*”Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.

*Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?”

The entire language of the two page bill may be found at the following link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM.  It simply states that government may not, “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”  It does not require that the state opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including the federally designed plan.

If Proposition C passes on August 3rd, it will become a Missouri statute.

Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on this issue.  It is a very important election.  Many people around the country will be watching for the Show-Me State election results.

For even more information, check out this website:  http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/

The Liberty Restoration Project held a counter protest/rally in SUPPORT of Prop C yesterday on the Plaza in Kansas City.  There was a rally AGAINST Prop C at the same time, same place as well.  We had well over 30 people come out in support of Prop C, handed out fliers educating the public on the issue, and urging voters to vote YES on Tuesday, August 3.  We had a great amount of positive feedback from passersby.  Many honked their horns and gave us the thumbs up!!  Below are photos and a video from yesterdays rally:

July 28, 2010 10:40 PM

By Jane Cunningham

(The following is a rejected submission to the Kansas City Star)

I encourage your readers to vote yes on Proposition C, The Health Care Freedom Act, on August 3. It is a critical election since Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on Obamacare. Many around the country will be watching the election results from the Show-Me State.

In response to your July 23 editorial on Proposition C, my first reaction as the sponsor of the bill was, had you bothered to check with its sponsors you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of bold face inaccuracies.

The language of the measure simply states that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.” It does not require the state to opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including any federally designed and approved plan. It would only keep them from being penalized, including criminally, for exercising their choices regarding healthcare.

The Health Care Freedom Act passed the Missouri Legislature with an overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority vote of the House and the Senate with 68% of elected Representatives and Senators supporting the measure. Legislators in 42 States, or 84% of the states in the union, introduced similar measures in a push back of historic proportions against the intrusive overreach of the federal government in the area of health care.

If the Health Care Freedom Act is ratified by a majority of the voters on August 3, it will become a statute that will authorize Missouri’s Attorney General to defend Missourians against the mandates and penalties of Obamacare. Unlike you, that is hardly what I would call “futile.”

Eventually, the Missouri law, joined with similar laws and constitutional amendments from other states, will work its way to the US Supreme Court for a decision that has never been made in the history of America – is the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution so broad that the federal government can force individuals and employers to purchase a product — any product — with their own money against their will. Many constitutional attorneys and scholars believe that it is not. If the Kansas City Star believes that is a “futile” question to have addressed, perhaps you need to review the historical account of the Boston Tea Party with the resulting revolution and sacrifice that was made to protect similar rights.

With regard to your prediction that premiums would be reduced under the federal law, we need look no further than Massachusetts where a similar program to the federal mandate law has been tried. The results: premiums rose 40% and uninsured visits to the emergency rooms remained the same or rose slightly.

You stated that Proposition C was “instigated by an advocacy group amply funded by health insurers and drug companies.” This is just flat untrue! Had you done your homework by checking the Missouri Ethics Commission financial reports where all donations are required to be disclosed, you would have seen that no donations to the campaign committee, Missourians for Health Care Freedom, came from insurance or drug companies. I will accept your public apology for this misrepresentation of our effort on behalf of hundreds of citizens who flooded the Capitol urging relief from the federal takeover. This is the people’s bill and the people’s campaign from the bottom up.

Contrary to your statement about the ballots, Proposition C cost nothing to add to an already available ballot. Had you bothered to check the publicly available fiscal note on the bill from the Capitol Fiscal Oversight Office, you would have seen that a nonpartisan review showed a fiscal note of zero. Fiscal notes are required of all legislation that is considered in the House or Senate.

How you conclude that this will increase legal costs I don’t know since the Attorney General’s office is responsible for defending Missouri Statutes. That budget item remains the same no matter how many or how few state cases the office tries.

And, by the way, there is precedent for state laws to trump federal law contrary to your assertion.

I hope you will check your facts first for future recommendations, but perhaps there was never an intention for facts to interfere with your viewpoint.

It really boils down to whether you want government to make your health care choices or you want to make them yourself. If you want to make them yourself, you should vote yes on Proposition C.

via Yes On Prop C: What You Won’t Read In the Kansas City Star.