Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Transportation topics in KC
pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby pash » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:41 pm

.
Last edited by pash on Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby FangKC » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:15 am

It is also very difficult for disabled people to find affordable housing near transit in Kansas City. Most buildings are not set up for disabled people to begin with. Finding ones that are, that are also next to transit is nearly impossible. In addition, many older people acquire disabling physical problems later in life, so this too becomes an issue for seniors. Many health problems result in having to give up driving. If one lives in neighborhoods without good transit, one becomes trapped at home.

ztonyg
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:38 pm
Location: Peoria, AZ

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby ztonyg » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:00 am

What happens if the anti-rail question and the streetcar expansion question both pass. Does this mean that the streetcar expansion can continue or does there need to be an additional citywide vote?

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:07 am

ztonyg wrote:What happens if the anti-rail question and the streetcar expansion question both pass. Does this mean that the streetcar expansion can continue or does there need to be an additional citywide vote?


in my opinion, yes. that's another reason to vote yes on question 2: hedging your bet against question 1.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:18 pm

Highlander wrote:Like I said, I don't know why the opponents feel so threatened except that a lot of people my age (who grew up in the 60's and 70's) sincerely are threatened by progressive urban ideas. I don't understand it - I embrace it. I watched my father become essentially a prisoner of his own suburban home when he became too old to drive although he was perfectly capable of walking to a streetcar stop had one existed.

There's a lot of people that seriously think we'll be better off when the baby boomers aren't in charge. I don't think that's a fair universal statement but it's largely true of who is threatened and lashing out.

I don't think it's anti-progressive, I think it's old fear and hatred. Not everyone can change their mind fully or want to. We all live with the prejudices of our time and location, conscious or not, and sometimes people act on these beliefs . "Those people" could be poor, minority, gay, whatever.

It doesn't really matter because transit encompasses all groups that aren't white, middle class and if you lived through the 1960s and 70s you saw white flight and think that your group of dislike is an urban group. Nevermind that today isn't 1980 and they haven't bothered to leave Brookside or Prairie Village and see what 27th and Troost looks like today.

The big tell that this has truth is how many suburban projects has CFRG, Smart KC or Show-Me Institute fought against other than the airport? When a group only seems to be against urban handouts it makes you think it's not about taxes.

I respect their wanting things put to a citywide vote. I think their methods are dishonest and this one especially so.

The city is probably laughing at this one knowing there's some supreme court ruling they can use that already answered the question on who can approve inter-state rail service construction. They would have changed the ordinance to remove freight service if it had any chance.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8954
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby Highlander » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:47 pm

flyingember wrote:
Highlander wrote:Like I said, I don't know why the opponents feel so threatened except that a lot of people my age (who grew up in the 60's and 70's) sincerely are threatened by progressive urban ideas. I don't understand it - I embrace it. I watched my father become essentially a prisoner of his own suburban home when he became too old to drive although he was perfectly capable of walking to a streetcar stop had one existed.

There's a lot of people that seriously think we'll be better off when the baby boomers aren't in charge. I don't think that's a fair universal statement but it's largely true of who is threatened and lashing out.

I don't think it's anti-progressive, I think it's old fear and hatred. Not everyone can change their mind fully or want to. We all live with the prejudices of our time and location, conscious or not, and sometimes people act on these beliefs . "Those people" could be poor, minority, gay, whatever.



I guess I am a boomer albeit tail end of the boom. And I'm not sure boomers really are the issue. You have to remember what a step change boomers were from the previous outwardly conservative generation. It was the boomer generation that smoked dope and listened to the Stones and Zeppelin and became hippies with all the implications regarding sex, drugs and rock and roll. I don't think generations are all that different, it's just that people get more conservative and extremely protective of what they believe to their vested interest as they grow older. The more insular boomers are going to react very negatively to anything they perceive as change and those that have been around the world a bit will accept modern urbanism with a little more gusto.

I think the bigger issue is that so many midwesterners are just extremely insular. I have well to do family members that are in their 40's and 50's that have never left the US and have barely visited the coasts. Most of them think NYC is a curious anomaly and San Francisco and LA are part of a failed state. I read the Star comments and just have to wonder at the conviction at which people make ridiculous statements about downtown, the streetcar, etc.... Then again, I have to admit that I've creeped on the FB pages of some of the CFRG folks who post on that page regularly - I am really surprised to see that these folks are occasionally well traveled and otherwise seemingly intelligent people - go figure.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:49 am

it's just that people get more conservative and extremely protective of what they believe to their vested interest as they grow older.


You could fairly argue that people over age 60 vote more and this explains the skew in election results towards conservative viewpoints and this so far has been when a population clearly grows more conservative.

I would say that this ordinance is going to depend on younger voters to tell the city they don't agree with CFRG and get out and vote.

This post has some interesting charts on political leaning by age
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18926&start=1100#p558188

JBmidtown
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby JBmidtown » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:33 pm

At the core of it, there's no way this ordinance has ANY legal footing so I'm not worried. Let the racist boomers lash out fruitlessly. It's all the more hilarious to me.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:57 pm

JBmidtown wrote:At the core of it, there's no way this ordinance has ANY legal footing so I'm not worried. Let the racist boomers lash out fruitlessly. It's all the more hilarious to me.


yes, but...

the current council may do something like they did in 2006 -- repeal and replace. i can totally envision a few on the council pushing a citywide vote of their own after repealing the actual petition initiative (if it passed) to "honor the wishes of voters". see also: KCI.

JBmidtown
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby JBmidtown » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:11 pm

Ugh I hate Kansas City politics.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:13 pm

hearing should occur in january. six co-sponsors as of today, nine needed to modify. proposed wording would allow riverfront and main street extensions to proceed, since they were already in progress when the question 1 vote occurred. all future expansion would require citywide election. also, the fine and prohibition on planning are lifted.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/kc ... 70884.html

tower
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:45 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby tower » Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:23 pm

Clever. It allows the city to let the streetcar to go forward without directly going against "the will of the voters". Unfortunately, it legitimizes the ordinance. Hopefully support for light rail will have increased citywide by the time we want to expand again.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby flyingember » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:30 pm

tower wrote:Clever. It allows the city to let the streetcar to go forward without directly going against "the will of the voters". Unfortunately, it legitimizes the ordinance. Hopefully support for light rail will have increased citywide by the time we want to expand again.

171032

It actually is a big middle finger to the ordinance writers as it changes the wording dramatically. The original ordinance was "you will never be involved in any rail expansion project ever without a vote" and it's been watered down to "don't be the cause any work without a citywide vote but you can help when others are the cause of this work being needed"
remember, the original ordinance was meant to block TDD-based projects as much as anything.

So you're into a legal question of who is the "cause" of any work. If a group like the KCRTA comes with a petition to the courts to build something was the city the cause of the project? The city is already claiming this text allows for the to UMKC and to Riverfront work so it's possible that any future third party TDD would be fine for the city to help with as well.

and there would be zero fine involved. so the only way to get a punishment is for a third party to sue the city and get a court to agree to damages. They're telling the groups against that they'll need to make a large effort to prove what happened and file a lawsuit and that's risky.

the easiest way to give an ordinance no teeth is to water is down and remove all penalties.

Section 1. That Section 64-81, Code of Ordinances, “Construction of fixed rail transit system,” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 64-81. Construction of fixed rail transit system.

(a) Regulated Activities. Except as provided in this section, the City and any and all City officers, agents, and employees are prohibited from causing the following without complying with subsection (b) of this section:

(1) construction of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system; or

(2) purchase of land on which to construct any new fixed rail transit system or any addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system.

(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.

(c) Planning permitted. This section does not prohibit the planning necessary to construct or prepare for the construction of any new fixed rail transit system or addition to or expansion of any existing fixed rail transit system.

(d) Limitation on use of public funds. Consistent with the prohibition contained in Section 115.646, Revised Statutes of Missouri, the City and any and all City officers, agents and employees will not use public funds for the purpose of advocating, supporting or opposing any ballot measure required by this ordinance.

(e) This ordinance shall not be interpreted or enforced so as to violate any person's rights under the Constitutions of the United States or Missouri.

(f) Definitions:

As used in this Ordinance, “fixed rail transit system” is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods, by way of vehicles running on rails.

As used in this Ordinance, “existing fixed rail transit system” is the electronically driven rail transit system that is commonly known as the “Downtown Street Car Transit System” as that phrase is used in Ordinance No. 140581, including any southerly extension as proposed by the Kansas City Main Street Rail Transportation Development District and any northerly extension terminating in the general vicinity of the Missouri River and Berkley Riverfront Park, to the same extent and effect as if such extension or extensions were in full operation as of the adoption of this Ordinance.

As used in this Ordinance, “addition to” means the process of uniting the “existing fixed rail transit system,” with a newly built “fixed rail transit system.”

As used in this Ordinance, “expansion of” means an enlargement in scope or operation of the "existing fixed rail transit system.”

As used in this Ordinance, “new” means a “fixed rail transit system” that is not to be united with the “existing fixed rail transit system” following its construction.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:52 pm

DaveKCMO wrote:hearing should occur in january. six co-sponsors as of today, nine needed to modify. proposed wording would allow riverfront and main street extensions to proceed, since they were already in progress when the question 1 vote occurred. all future expansion would require citywide election. also, the fine and prohibition on planning are lifted.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/kc ... 70884.html


this ordinance is on the T&I docket next week.

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:28 am

T&I was cancelled yesterday, so the ordinance will be heard on 1/18. please email your councilmembers letting them know you support streetcar expansion and passage of 171032.

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/liveweb/Docum ... hDK6iApeOx

User avatar
DaveKCMO
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 16151
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance

Postby DaveKCMO » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:23 pm

the star supports the council's decision to fix the legal flaws with question 1: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edito ... 74749.html


Return to “Kansas City Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests