KCRag Forum

.

I'm no legal expert but this lawsuit is weird.

She's not trying to throw out the TDD statutes statewide. That's not in the request anywhere.

You don't go to one circuit court to throw out the actions of another circuit court. It's a jurisdictional issue.

Judges tend to not like it when you try to add parties not involved. The Secretary of State didn't call this election, certify this election or run this election. So

It includes 62 people that signed the petition. Sueing someone for submitting a petion and/or following a court order and not explaining what part they played in the claimed damages isn't going to help her any.\

My guess is this gets thrown out for venue issues alone because the Secretary of State doesn't run the circuit court system and isn't party to actions



My favorite ignored point,two plaintiffs live a 7 minute bus ride from the Westport library. Two live almost around the corner from the Plaza library, one being a block away.

Classic lawyer claim in saying "no internet access at home" means there's no possible way to get the internet anywhere nearby. I also know there's resources out there to help people with computer use.
And they all qualify for a reduced fare bus card so they can travel downtown for a few dollars, not the $40 mentioned.

If anything, we have a failure to help senior citizens understand resources around them, not to make a ballot available with methods they can make use of. And that needs to be fixed.

DaveKCMO wrote:

bobbyhawks wrote:So, if they win (not saying it is likely), wouldn't it have to also effectively eliminate all TDDs in the state and create total chaos (and force tax dollars from people who never voted in a TDD to support future TDD obligations)?

possibly, because very few TDD votes have been conducted at the ballot box. the citywide NKC TDD formation vote in 2008 is a notable exception. there's another tri-county sales-tax-only TDD that expanded US-36.

Not to mention this is how many CID votes are held as well. If its proven unlawful for TDDs I don't see how CIDs wouldn't be subject to the same issue.

pash wrote:No need to make the case publicly that Sherry DeJanes is an obstructionist out for her own narrow interest, willing to set back Kansas City's system of public transit by decades in order to preserve her surprisingly spacious backyard. I'm sure she'll go away of her own accord any day now.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Why hasn't someone contacted a local media outlet to do some research into the DeJanes property incursion? Seems like a perfect article for The Pitch.

Three out of four of the plaintiffs' complaint is they allegedly don't have access to transportation or a computer, so they couldn't vote against the streetcar.

Oh the irony.

lol I'm being sued.

KCLover wrote:Three out of four of the plaintiffs' complaint is they allegedly don't have access to transportation or a computer, so they couldn't vote against the streetcar.

Oh the irony.

Even more ironic: 3 of the 4 live closer to both a public notary and a post office than to their respective polling places.

Where was Dejanes when they needed rides?

Dejanes must have little or no confidence that Question 1 is going to amount to anything.

I wonder how many of them could've accessed the internet via cell phone?

the mayor has endorsed this slate of seven candidates for the TDD board of directors. election to be held saturday, oct. 7.

https://www.connectkc.org/how-to-vote/



sample ballot and polling place info has been posted at https://www.kceb.org/elections/

What's the deadline for applying to be a director? We need to make sure we fill the board.

beautyfromashes wrote:What's the deadline for applying to be a director? We need to make sure we fill the board.

August 31. We will be fine. The vast majority of the 19 candidates that filed are supporters.

kcjak wrote: Why hasn't someone contacted a local media outlet to do some research into the DeJanes property incursion? Seems like a perfect article for The Pitch.

Cliff notes on this property incursion you speak of..

im2kull wrote:

kcjak wrote: Why hasn't someone contacted a local media outlet to do some research into the DeJanes property incursion? Seems like a perfect article for The Pitch.

Cliff notes on this property incursion you speak of..

Horrible encroachment

Go to Bing birds eye view
https://www.bing.com/maps/
If you're unaware how, birds eye is in the upper right. Click on "road" to change to it.

From 62nd Terr on the south (the street with the brookside grocery store) look at the houses just west of the trail starting from the bike share station

6217 has the driveway at the bike share station. their driveway is too big but it's not crazy impacting and is easy to remove
6512's lot ends about halfway down the driveway too. Their fence is too far out
Go up two houses to 6205. their fence is properly placed at their property line and as the closest line no one would care if everyone lined up with their lot.

Now look at the third house, 6209. this is Dejanes
Her back yard really ends basically in line with the power pole visible in the driveway at 6217. If her fence was in line with the houses on both sides no one would care
Instead her backyard is twice the size the parcel gives and bumps up almost all the way to the trail.

If you eyeball the width of two street lanes + the trail, this encroachment effectively is blocking the ability to lay two train tracks and keep the trail at the same time.

https://twitter.com/kclightrail/status/ ... 0739592192

KCMO was the project sponsor for the starter line.

flyingember wrote: Horrible encroachment....

Using the KCMO Parcel Viewer, I followed the entire length of the Trolley Track Trail and found 6 encroachments onto KCATA property. And all 6 are between 61st Terr and 62nd Terr -- DeJanes and her neighbors.

• 6217 Brookside - As you noted above, half the driveway is on KCATA land.
• 6215 Brookside - As you noted, about half of the fenced in back yard is KCATA property.
• 6209 Brookside - DeJanes is by far the worst offender. Not only is her entire fenced back yard and a detached shed/garage over the property line, it appears half of the addition to the back of her house is outside of her property as well. As you pointed out, this is the only one of the six encroachments that would have any significant impact on any future streetcar expansion south of UMKC.
• 6201 Brookside - A portion of the fenced yard and it appears a portion of the garage are on the KCATA's land.
• 6139 Brookside - Two permanent sheds are constructed on KCATA land.
• 6129 Brookside - The driveway and garage are entirely on the KCATA's parcel.

Now here's my question -- Apart from the fences (which are easy enough to put up illegally), how did the building permits get approved for all of these outbuildings and driveways in the first place?

Permits?

That's what I was thinking

I found permits listed for both of the encroaching driveways, the encroaching home addition, and at least two of the encroaching garages/outbuildings.