Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Transportation topics in KC
flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6595
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:38 pm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Hfhe ... sp=sharing

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

(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.


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.

let's move on and show how B functionally invalidates the ordinance and is possibly unconstutional

Item B
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.


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.


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

swid
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Financial District

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby swid » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:39 pm


pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:23 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

longviewmo
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby longviewmo » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:36 pm

From the address given in the petition, it would appear her house backs up to the ROW.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:49 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

swid
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Financial District

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby swid » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:18 pm

I won't be holding my breath for the hard-hitting Pitch article on how she's squatting on the ROW.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby chaglang » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:45 pm

And the city hasn't cited her for this... why?

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6595
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:51 pm

chaglang wrote:And the city hasn't cited her for this... why?


All her neighbors know. The city can take the upper hand and make her look bad. They follow the law, she doesn't

And besides, the deed is clear so the KCATA doesn't need to do anything to use that land besides tear the fence down and move a shed.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:12 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby grovester » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:44 pm

Not to mention, don't you need a permit for a fence in kcmo? Did that fence get one?

kboish
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2301
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby kboish » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:06 pm

Someone should write a letter to the biz journal or Kc star. I'm sure theyd publish as an editorial.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby aknowledgeableperson » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:20 pm

grovester wrote:Not to mention, don't you need a permit for a fence in kcmo? Did that fence get one?


of course not sure when an ordinance was passed but knew quite a few people who installed fences a long time ago without any city oversight. And as long as not torn down to replace they are grandfathered in. You can do repairs but not replace.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:51 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby chaglang » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:59 pm

pash wrote:
grovester wrote:Not to mention, don't you need a permit for a fence in kcmo? Did that fence get one?

You only need a permit to put up a fence on your own property.

=D>
In the language of the ordinance, what constitutes "planning for"? Is Sly James simply talking to Russ Johnson about streetcar considered planning? It seems like any city officials discussing a hypothetical situation of the streetcar expanding would run them afoul of this law. In which case (and jeebus I'm going to sound like a legal rube here) is that a First Amendment violation?

shaffe
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2347
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby shaffe » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:20 pm

Can somebody explain why folks out there are so outraged at the idea of a legitimate transit system in this city? FFS we have no chance at ever catching up at it is, why let us fall further behind?

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:28 am

.
Last edited by pash on Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6595
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:51 am

chaglang wrote:In the language of the ordinance, what constitutes "planning for"? Is Sly James simply talking to Russ Johnson about streetcar considered planning? It seems like any city officials discussing a hypothetical situation of the streetcar expanding would run them afoul of this law. In which case (and jeebus I'm going to sound like a legal rube here) is that a First Amendment violation?


Good thinking! Planning includes thinking about the subject. So because this law attempts to control thoughts and speech in a broad manner it's federal first amendment illegal. It's attempting to say because you work for the city your speech is controlled.

But it applies only if they cause the planning of. Simply do everything based around a citizen need. Some business owner asks a question, hold a large public meeting in order to give the response. Person asks for the costs, fund and hold a study on the subject that requires city council approval to do so.

Also I just noticed the election loophole. It doesn't actually say there needs to be an election of every single specific action. The election only has to approve the generic types of actions the ordinance would attempt to outlaw because it says that. They actually define the election items a being what they wrote in the proposed ordinance. so one election and it's done. that's certainly an unexpected loophole.

I'm getting a feeling the author is not very good at constructive things

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12726
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby FangKC » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:21 am

If they are proposing a city ordinance that the city cannot embark upon streetcar planning without a city-wide vote, can't the council just vote down the ordinance proposal?

It would seem to me that the only way they could force this city-wide vote on transit-related planning, is to force a vote city-wide, by citizen initiative, to change the City Charter, so that the Council, Community-Improvement Districts (CIDs), and city workers cannot plan for future transit plans with it being first approved by voters.
Last edited by FangKC on Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chaglang
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3273
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby chaglang » Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:53 am

On rereading, the "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 planning for or studying..." is the soft underbelly. If instead of the city initiating the project a citizen-led group like Streetcar Neighbors went to the city and pushed for the Main St. Extension, that seems to get everyone around this proposed ordinance. I wonder if that was worded so weakly in an attempt to stay on the good side of the state TDD law.

Regardless, the city would need to be careful with how they communicate with that citizen's group. A Pitch reporter will almost certainly file a Sunshine request for their emails.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12726
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby FangKC » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:13 am

The way around that is to only use those old-fashioned swipe tablets we enjoyed as children. The city workers and elected staff could communicate to each other using these, and then pull up the translucent page that erases the communication. :lol:


Return to “Kansas City Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests