i've heard august formation election, november revenue election. still a two-stage deal, but live election this time due to the increased size.
Got it. Thanks. I am anxious and impatient, but I was a little worried about a low turnout spring municipal election making an easy row to hoe for the antis.
The place to worry isn't the election, it's the court hearing for the district formation. The lawsuit did a wonderful job of stressing the importance of this single event.
If there's any organized opposition they will organize around this event. Because it's a lot more effective to hire a lawyer to argue against a judge to stop the election than to field the people to get a bunch of voters to say no without a really effective argument.
The city has a really good argument. When it said, "no, we can't afford to do everything this time" the council gained a lot of credibility it could pull off the project. (Government never saying no is more than a cliche.) And we already know a huge swath of the city is onboard for every line presented and then some.
I would service them myself, but they don't tip worth shit.
They tipped very well in 2004 in NYC. They greatly outspend the Dems in per capita outlay during convention season. I don't find this surprising looking at the financial profile of the delegate mix. One of the most luxe parties I've ever attended was Norquist's ATR blow-out at the New York Yacht Club. Even just a spattering of RNC's local tax spend will provide plenty of grease for all means of transit initiatives.
There is almost zero downside in landing a convention.
it seems to me that some kind of education campaign will be needed for how a TDD boundary works given how many people still whine about the voting limitation. anything less than a citywide vote will only encourage this even more. I'm not worried about those who are educated, I'm worried about giving a on the surface legit sounding argument to someone preying on the uneducated. sowing doubts that the city is encouraging a yes vote through a corrupt method is an easy way to lose an election if it goes big enough. downtown was lucky that it had a hands on, educated, population
the easiest method to show why they're legit is also crazy risky.
you compare a TDD to a congressional district. people already know a city like KC has many congressional districts and you only get to vote for someone if you live inside the specific district they're running for.
so is there any similar comparison that's widely known that doesn't turn an election into a republican vs democrat fight?
an argument that can be used by preachers, community leaders, neighborhood associations and such. something so simple you can explain it in a few sentences
because a simple honest argument using something people already understand has a lot more power than the sky is falling which has a lot more power than political BS
the other arguement to counter is less well suited for paper but is equally powerful
the argument that too few people voted for the TDD. I go straight to ultra conservative (which is ironic as I'm not). "voting isn't mandatory" with some points about personal choice. people dislike being told they must do something and I'd say that crosses political parties. you don't bring up "you don't have a say if you don't" because someone that doesn't vote can still contact their rep. you lost the argument if you start telling people what they can and can't do in an argument about the opposite being the case
because it's easier to search here than the city website
RESOLUTION NO. 140017
Calling for the joint establishment of the Kansas City Urban Rail Transportation Development District with the Port Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, for the purpose of implementing and funding the design, engineering, construction and/or operation of an expanded streetcar system and other transportation projects.
WHEREAS, the Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Transportation Development District has been properly, duly and lawfully organized and is presently existing for the purpose of undertaking, or causing to be undertaken, the design, construction, ownership and/or operation of an approximately 2.1 mile downtown fixed rail streetcar line running generally along Main Street from River Market to Crown Center/Union Station (the “Starter Line”); and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Starter Line should be expanded to include additional expansion routes that will, subject to further design and engineering, run generally along (i) Independence Avenue, east from the Starter Line, (ii) Linwood Boulevard and/or 31st Street, east from the Starter Line, and (iii) Main Street and/or the public right of way commonly referred to as the Country Club Right of Way or public streets in the vicinity thereof, south from the Starter Line (collectively being the “Expansion Routes”); and
WHEREAS, the City has also determined that the Starter Line should be served by express bus vehicles to implement a bus rapid transit route that will, subject to further design and engineering, run generally along Prospect Avenue and Twelfth Street (the “BRT Route”); and
WHEREAS, the continued implementation of the Starter Line and the addition of the Expansion Routes and BRT Route will require a local financial commitment that is intended to be met through the formation and operation of the Kansas City Urban Rail Transportation Development District (the “TDD”) formed pursuant to Sections 238.200, et. seq., RSMo, as amended (the “TDD Act”); and
WHEREAS, Section 238.207.5 of the TDD Act provides that a petition seeking the formation of the TDD may be filed in the appropriate Circuit Court by a the governing body of a local transportation authority if two or more local transportation authorities have adopted resolutions calling for the joint establishment of the TDD; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Port Authority of Kansas City, Missouri (the “Port Authority”) are each a local transportation authority with jurisdiction over certain transportation/transit improvements within the proposed boundaries of the TDD; and
WHEREAS, the Port Authority is expected to adopt a resolution calling for the joint establishment with the City of the TDD; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF KANSAS CITY:
Section 1. That the City of Kansas City, Missouri, as a local transportation authority, calls for the joint establishment with the Port Authority of the Kansas City Urban Rail Transportation Development District in the manner provided for in Section 238.207.5, RSMo.
Section 2. That upon the adoption by the Port Authority of a resolution calling for the joint establishment with the City of the TDD contemplated hereby, the Mayor is authorized to cause the preparation and filing, in the name and on behalf of the City, of a petition seeking the formation in accordance with the TDD Act, in such form and with such specific boundaries and revenue sources as are determined by the Mayor and described in a communication by the Mayor to the Council.
Section 3. That the City recognizes that pursuant to the TDD Act, the decisions to approve the formation of such TDD, and to approve the specific types of revenue and rates thereof, require the affirmative vote of the “qualified voters” (as defined in the TDD Act) voting thereon at elections to be conducted in the future for such purposes, and that neither the adoption of this Resolution, nor judicial approval of the formation petition for such TDD, will by themselves cause the formation of such TDD or the approval of the specific types of revenue and rates thereof.
say the TDD is expanded but the city doesn't get federal funding. will the city start building anyways, just at a slower pace?
no.
the city might want to make that clear then. a LOT of people are going to think a yes vote means the city will build.
for something that's not the final phase of the project don't want to remotely annoy people with a negative result if we don't get other funding. should be very clear and transparent on what the vote means
say the TDD is expanded but the city doesn't get federal funding. will the city start building anyways, just at a slower pace?
no.
the city might want to make that clear then.
they will.
here's how this works for new starts (different than the phase 1 approach): you submit your project, the FTA grades it (high/medium/low), then it has to get picked up in the president's budget. that could all take a very long time, based on whatever the politics are at a given moment.
say the TDD is expanded but the city doesn't get federal funding. will the city start building anyways, just at a slower pace?
no.
In the council hearing the Polsenelli rep said something in passing that could imply it's possible that the district could build part of the system if enough funding is acquired.
definitely an area to get a solid answer well before an election
here's how this works for new starts (different than the phase 1 approach): you submit your project, the FTA grades it (high/medium/low), then it has to get picked up in the president's budget. that could all take a very long time, based on whatever the politics are at a given moment.
This is when a Kit Bond would have come in handy. Or even just earmarks...love em or hate em- it got shit done.
Voters in a wide swath of Kansas City's urban core could be asked in August to approve a special taxing district to pay for expansion of the city's streetcar line. The proposed new taxing district would take in a district set up to pay for the initial 2.2-mile downtown line.
Doug Stone, an attorney for Polsinelli PC, explained the city's financing strategy for the second phase of the streetcar project on Thursday. The plan calls for the formation of a Transportation Development District that would span from the Missouri River to 85th Street and east from State Line Road to Interstate 435.
Demosthenes wrote:It is literally mind blowing that Susie just doesn't quit. What an attention whore.
Suspect that she's trying to hang around long enough for the city to buy her out.
nah, she'll make a killing when 2015 property assessments are calculated and she realizes she's sitting on a gold mine. exit, stage left, via a private real estate transaction.
pretty proud that no one was condemned or otherwise forced from their property for this project.
