Re: Anti-rail proposed ordinance
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:41 pm
.
in my opinion, yes. that's another reason to vote yes on question 2: hedging your bet against question 1.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?
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.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.
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.flyingember wrote: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.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.
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.
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.it's just that people get more conservative and extremely protective of what they believe to their vested interest as they grow older.
yes, but...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.
171032tower 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.
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.
this ordinance is on the T&I docket next week.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