KCRag Forum

Interesting point on the fine aspect was made today.

The ordinance doesn't define who pays or where the money goes or who enforces it.

It covers a use of public funds doing official duty. so does the city pay it?
I can't imagine the fine would be from personal money if doing official duties as required by the city council.
And if the city fines itself who do they pay it to? Themselves?

flyingember wrote:Interesting point on the fine aspect was made today.

The ordinance doesn't define who pays or where the money goes or who enforces it.

It covers a use of public funds doing official duty. so does the city pay it?
I can't imagine the fine would be from personal money if doing official duties as required by the city council.
And if the city fines itself who do they pay it to? Themselves?

The Star opinion piece implies that the ordinance stipulates a fine on the actual city employee. That makes the ordinance diabolical in addition to being merely disingenuous and cynical. That's the actual ordinance, the ballot question is misleading to the point of being an outright lie. Why was this thing allowed to even be on the ballot?

Highlander wrote:

flyingember wrote:Interesting point on the fine aspect was made today.

The ordinance doesn't define who pays or where the money goes or who enforces it.

It covers a use of public funds doing official duty. so does the city pay it?
I can't imagine the fine would be from personal money if doing official duties as required by the city council.
And if the city fines itself who do they pay it to? Themselves?

The Star opinion piece implies that the ordinance stipulates a fine on the actual city employee. That makes the ordinance diabolical in addition to being merely disingenuous and cynical. That's the actual ordinance, the ballot question is misleading to the point of being an outright lie. Why was this thing allowed to even be on the ballot?

Because mob rule populism is one of the unfortunate end results of sloppily designed democracy?

relevant:

Case #1716-CV02051

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do

Finally!

Filed January 2017, with the trial currently scheduled for June 2018. Oof.

At least since there's been a lawsuit filed, we can stop tiptoeing around Sherry DeJanes' illegal encroachment on the Trolley Track Trail and blatant conflict of interest in streetcar expansion (at least in the hypothetical scenario of it going to Brookside).

Who's got a burner email account and wants to email tips@pitch.com ?

DeJanes on Ruckus this evening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9--Dutja9M

So when has the pro streetcar side ever been on ruckus newsmaker section?

KCPowercat wrote:So when has the pro streetcar side ever been on ruckus newsmaker section?

I’d guess that the typical Ruckus audience is, how do I say this, a bit more mature than those typically passionate about the streetcar.

not mature, just old

He did not even ask her about her fence encroachment on the trolley right of way.

moderne wrote:He did not even ask her about her fence encroachment on the trolley right of way.

Yeah, seems like a major oversight since it's also active litigation and incredibly relevant to her streetcar opposition.

Maybe, she had it as a condition of her appearance not to talk about active litigation.

That does sound lawyery.

That segment is always softball wuestions to whatever the guest wants to discuss.

beautyfromashes wrote:Maybe, she had it as a condition of her appearance not to talk about active litigation.

But they freely chatted about the litigation where she is representing transit opponents...

DaveKCMO wrote: But they freely chatted about the litigation where she is representing transit opponents...

“News” is pretty much softballs now. Prescripted questions. ‘Don’t aske me about this.’ Promote my cause. Basically glorified commercials. Being a lawyer, I’m sure she set every word up. Would love to see a rebuttal or, even better, a no holds barred debate.

A debate is pointless after seven years of back and forth on the topic. It won't change the outcome or even convince a yes or no voter to change their mind. And who is undecided at this point? Even if you are, your vote isn't due until June 12.

There are no forums on streetcar because you can just go downtown and judge for yourself if you want to pay for the amenity. It's no longer an abstract concept.

70% of the district said yes to the formation so we can reasonably expect a similar vote for the final step.

^ Was thinking more that it would make for good viewing. A strong streetcar supporter would ask her the hard questions that didn’t get asked in a segment like this. You’re right, the streetcar sides are decided. But, there are many people in this metro that have no clue about transportation in a modern city and the benefit it would provide for the regional economy, environment and job creation. A good point/counterpoint would be beneficial to the broader city audience.

beautyfromashes wrote:^ Was thinking more that it would make for good viewing. A strong streetcar supporter would ask her the hard questions that didn’t get asked in a segment like this. You’re right, the streetcar sides are decided. But, there are many people in this metro that have no clue about transportation in a modern city and the benefit it would provide for the regional economy, environment and job creation. A good point/counterpoint would be beneficial to the broader city audience.

You're missing the big picture. Most people won't know it's on or care to change their plans to watch.
The Star is almost under 250,000 subscriptions. Just Kansas City has 190,000 households.

It's a waste of time to make something that's good viewing for the tiny overlap that watches PBS and the tiny overlap that cares about the streetcar