they left a number of gaping holes that means everything they want to block can still happen under it.
this is what they want to stop
the key thing is section A is reliant on section B. in cases where section B isn't valid there's no need to compy with it, thus all items in A may be done. basic logic.(a) Regulated Activities. Except as provided in this section, the City and any and all City officers, agents, and employees are prohibited from in any way causing the:
I. planning for or studying of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system; or
ii. construction of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system; or
iii. preparation for construction of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system; or
iv. preparation of land for construction of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system;
without complying with subsection (b) of this section.
let's move on and show how B functionally invalidates the ordinance and is possibly unconstutional
we already know the TDD is formed under a state law. it conflicts with this ordinance. the city already fought and largely won a lawsuit with Chastain over an ordiance needing to be legally sound to go before the voters.Election required. Before any action is taken to accomplish any activity defined in subsection (a) of this section, the proposed action must be presented to the voters of the City for their approval by a majority of those voting. This question may be joined with any measure required for voter approval of any means of funding the activities defined in subsection (a) of this section.
wait, let's go further and show how off this plan is.
notice one small word. "cause"
yes, we're into legal territory where everyone argues over what really caused a fixed rail project. was it the TDD? Was it the lawyer that drafted the document? was it the court that approved the formation election? was it the voters? it's a mess. I'd argue you go to what directly caused the specific actions covered by this ordinance to happen.
the resident/transit authority/business petition caused the county review, the county review caused the election, the election created a state-level entity with a legally binding requirement to plan and construct a fixed rail system.
so the state-legal TDD election was the cause of the need to plan and construct fixed rail. since the city wasn't the cause in any way then no city election is necessary and we're ok to do everything covered by A.
what if you don't and you go further?
so how do you start the process without the city? you use the independent kc streetcar authority. any city staff removes themselves from the vote. the authority contracts with individual X to investigate expansion TDDs and find residents to talk to the KCATA and port authority to get their support for the petition. and this law doesn't tell a private individual what they can and can't talk to the city lawyer about if that individual is the cause of the discussion.
and we just got around the entire code. all because they failed to understand state law overrules local law and small words matter. if you can't mandate an election and you don't cause something, you don't follow the law