Who's Responsible?

Right about now, I'd like to see Jack Frost roasting on an open fire. After my complaint about the condition of the sidewalks, a coworker mentioned seeing a lawyer on the local news who said you're better off leaving the snow where it is.

The thinking goes, if someone falls on an uncleared sidewalk it's an act of God. If someone falls on an improperly cleared sidewalk, the adjacent property owner can be held liable. Never mind that the sidewalk is City property.

(A note about the picture. This property owner is pretty good about clearing the walk. No disrespect is intended. Yeah, I know it's not a sidewalk. I picked it for its composition.)

But this lawyer, my coworker claims, went one step further. The lawyer is supposed to have said that there is no legal requirement to clear sidewalks. I was unable to find a link to the video. If the lawyer actually said that, he's wrong in the case of Kansas City, Missouri. Just to be clear, here's the ordinance:

Sec. 64-246. Removal of ice or snow.
It shall be the duty of all persons owning or occupying any real property, fronting upon any street, boulevard or highway, to remove from the sidewalks in front or alongside of such property all ice and snow within a reasonable time after cessation of a storm depositing such ice or snow. The provisions of chapter 62, article III, pertaining to littering, and penalties for violations thereof, shall be applicable to violations of this section.

This would seem to leave property owners between a rock and a hard place. Policy makers could fix this by limiting liability for property owners who attempt to clear their sidewalks and opening up liability for those who don't. (Mike Talboy?, Beth Low?, Jolie Justus?, anybody listening?)

There are issues to work out. What if the property owner is unavailable when the snow hits? How long does the property owner have to clear the snow? I could go on. Complaints about the nanny state aside, in this case the status quo discourages proper behavior.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, everyone.

I'm thinking it's a good thing Bing Crosby is dead. I think he'd get lynched if he were in town right now. 

I tried to find a picture of Santa Clause for this post. Trying to find one with any characters or any sense of a real human being is nearly impossible. I'm sending an elf instead.

Shake Up at the EDC

There's rumors flying lately of a possible shake-up in the way Kansas City does economic development. First was a posting a week ago by Joe Miller on KC Downtowner. Despite being in possession of an EDC document, Miller's post was met with some degree of skepticism. The rumor gained more strength the next day when the Business Journal backed up the story with its own article.

Whatever the truth of the mater, the document that Miller posted is itself worthy of public discussion. In particular, I want to point out my favorite part:

Greater emphasis on small business, entrepreneurship, organic business retention and growth, workforce enhancement and distressed areas assistance.

Why is this so important? I ask you, what city has ever made any real progress based on imported industry? Even if you still think tax breaks are the way to go, I think you will agree that there's wisdom in not putting all our eggs in one basket.

In Council: December 17, 2009

Sorry for the delay in getting this out this week. There was a lot to go through. I'm still working on cleaning up after my template fiasco last week. Most of the work is done, but I still need to get the my blog roll up.

Because of the holiday there is no City Council meeting this week.

Sewer Bonds Approved

The Council finally approved $16 million in revenue bonds. Revenue bonds are paid back from revenues generated by the use that they fund, not from general tax revenues. In this case the bonds will be paid from fees for sewer services. The bonds approved last week are low-interest bonds being made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Project

The City Council prioritized the projects eligible for low-income housing tax credits. Low-income housing tax credits are federal tax credits administered through the states, in our case by the Missouri Housing Development Commission. The program provides tax breaks for investors who invest in affordable housing. One of the requirements of the program is that only projects with local support are eligible. Hence the prioritized list from City Hall this week. Here's the list:

• East Village Apartments (Swope Community Builders) Downtown, East side
  
• Columbia Lofts (DLS Historic Developers) This might be the Columbia Burlap building in the west bottoms. I wasn't able to nail it down.
  
• Basie Court Apartments (Dalmark Development) 1940 Woodland Ave. This is near the Jazz district.
  
• Chatham Apartments – (Landmark Investment Group) As I recall, this building on Broadway was turned down several years ago for Tax Increment Financing, even though such a project would fit the intent of TIF better than the projects that actually do win that type of financing. I haven't heard anything about the disposition of this building in a while. I'll be anxious to see what happens.

Combat Pay Exempt from Earnings Tax

The Council voted to exempt pay earned in a combat zone from the city's earnings tax.

More Signal Coordination

It's a simple fact, a logical extension of the law of supply and demand. If you want to improve the air quality in this area, you have to reduce driving. A measure that reduces the time cost of driving doesn't do that. The Council went ahead with the measure anyway. I don't really blame the council for this one. The local culture starts with the primacy of the automobile as it's base assumption.

Other Business

• By a unanimous vote the Council adopted a resolution calling for a feasibility study regarding the idea of capping I-678.
• The proposed creation of the Power and Light Oversight died this week by unanimous vote when Councilman Skaggs moved to hold the measure off the docket.
• The Council formally adopted its wish list for the second session of the 111th Congress. 
• The City Council approved Tax Increment Financing for the Vitagraph building in the crossroads after the TIF Commission deadlocked on the same issue. The Vitagraph building is being renovated by Shirley Helzberg for administrative offices for the symphony. TIF funds will be used to add two floors o the Vitagraph building.
  
• The City Council approved increases to licensing fees for businesses.
  

Land Use and Sustainability

Around the country developers are building walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use developments that combine living, working, and shopping within the same package. It almost goes without saying that they wouldn't be doing this if it weren't making them money. Our local developers haven't figured this out yet.

• A plat was approved creating 12 multi-family condominium units on a half acre near North Brighton and 152. The project takes advantage of existing arteries. There are no employment or shopping opportunities within a quarter mile walk of the development.
• The City rezoned 2.2 acres at 34th and Prospect for the construction of housing for senior citizens. Although this project will use existing infrastructure, it uses a suburban development style (sprawl) and requires tearing down existing urban structures.
  

Looking Ahead

I'm running a bit behind this week. I'll post the look ahead later in the week.

Please Excuse the Mess

I accidentally mangled my template this morning and didn't have a recent backup. No posts until I get the layout fixed.

More Destruction?

I snapped these photos over the weekend. Sometime last week I noticed that part of the back of this building on the Southwest corner of 9th and Baltimore has been taken down. From what I can see on 9th street and an alleyway on Baltimore, it appears this may have something to do with the renovation of the buildings in that area.

I'd hate to think that we were tearing down even more of our history.

Does anybody out there know what is going on here?

In Council: December 10, 2009

What was the City Council up to last week? An unusual amount of this was covered by the mainstream press this week.

City Tightens Dress Code Requirements

The Council passed a revision to Chapter 10 of the code of ordinances that tightens dress code requirements. Specifically:

• Establishments cannot enforce a dress code that is not posted.
• Once posted, establishments cannot allow anyone into an establishment that does not conform to said dress code.
  

Red Bridge Road Bridge

The long-awaited construction of a new bridge over Red Bridge Road finally received approval this week with a $12 million allocation. The construction of the bridge will require two years beginning in January of 2010. The bridge to be built was have two lanes. According to the Star, this project "initially envisioned a four-lane bridge, but nearby residents feared that would attract massive amounts of traffic."

Residents of this area understood intuitively what traffic engineers and transportation planners never think of or what to ignore. Expanding roads creates expanding traffic. It's a simple case of the law of supply and demand. If we increase the capacity of a route, it reduces the costs of using that route, which in turn increases its demand. The principles called induced demand. Planners almost always assume that demand will grow whether a road is expanded or not. In some cases this may be true, but not in all.

Land Use and Sustainability

I'm expanding the scope of this particular feature. Land use and sustainability are closely related in that good land uses also tend to be sustainable land uses.

• A company called Divine Mercy, L.L.C. received approval to build 83 multi-family housing units on 15.75 acres near NE Russel Road and NE Davidson Road. This project uses existing arterial roads and is close to an existing highway.
• The Hickman Mills area plan was altered to change low density residential tracts to mixed-use tracts. The rezoning and approving of development plans for these tracts were held over for another week.
• Exactly 21.11 acres South of Cleaver Boulevard, Troost to Paseo will be redeveloped. I was not able to find out what kind of development this is going to be. Given that it's approval process has been under the old zoning regulations, it's probably sprawl. (It seems we always create sprawl around here even though it is the twenty-first century now.) I don't know if the old commercial buildings on the South side of Cleaver Boulevard will be recycled, but the ice house on 48th will be torn down.
  

Looking Ahead

Here's a few items the Council will consider in the coming weeks.

• The Council held over for another week it's wish list for the next Congress. You can read my comments on this wish list in last week's "In Council".
• The Council also held over for another week a measure establishing the Power and Light Oversight Commission.
• The House Committee received a resolution accepting the recommendations of the Housing Committee regarding projects to be submitted to the state for consideration of Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
• The City finally seems poised to recognize electronic fences as a proper dog restraint.
  

My Hero

Kudos to State Representative Belinda Harris of Hillsboro, Missouri. This week, Representative Harris filed legislation in Jefferson City for a constitutional amendment that would limit the use of eminent domain.

The crux of the problem, according to Harris, is that developers are sometimes creating the blight that is used as a justification for takings under eminent domain. According to Harris:

"The developers come in and buy these houses here and there, and let them go to pot, the windows are broke out and the roofs are leaking, and they have created this blight."

It may be that this measure is more about trying to advance some goal other than reforming eminent domain. For example it may be political theater for getting votes in an election year. Legislators sometimes do that kind of thing. In the coming days I'll be looking for intel about Harris' motive.

Given that eminent domain reform recently passed in Texas by 81 percent to 19 percent margin, and that it would probably get similar support in Missouri, it seemed inevitable that some legislators would be emboldened to step up to the plate on this issue. Which is why, for now, I choose to give Harris the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever her intentions, this legislation has some serious teeth. A few things that caught my eye:

• "Private property taken for private use or private ownership or other private rights shall not be considered a public use." This is a specific repudiation of the term "public use" as redefined by Kelo v. New London. Whatever else changes on this bill, this needs to remain intact.
• Only the  State can use eminent domain.
  
• If a taken property is unused after five years, the original property owner is entitled to receive it back at a price no greater than what the property was taken for.
• If rights to a taken property are transferred or sold, the original property owners get first shot at buying the property back for the taking price. This provision operates for twenty years after the taking. 

(This last item is the one I have questions about. I know that lawyers have tricks with corporations that make properties owned by the same person or persons different legal entities. Although I don't know much about the reasons, I know this practice is common and perfectly normal. I'll be interested in seeing how this provision fairs when the resolution gets to committee.)

Harris also proposes giving cities an alternative means of fighting blight. A related measure would allow cities to expend public funds to abate property nuisances and impose liens on abated properties for the repayment of said funds.

If the eminent domain measure is approved, it will appear on the November 2010 ballot.

In Council: December 3, 2009

The Sunday Star this week had a lengthy article on the rise and fall of the West Edge project on the Country Club Plaza. The Star reports that in 2003, the City gave developers $31.6 million in tax-increment financing to help with the cost of removing rock that was in the way of a planned underground garage. Developers could have put some of that parking in above-ground garages. They could have shared parking with other facilities in the area. The garage behind Unity Temple, which is less than a quarter mile away comes to mind. My point is that somebody's lack of imagination took $31.6 million out of municipal coffers.

Let's see what the current Council has been up.

GSA Office Building

The Council adopted a resolution supporting the construction by the Federal Government of a General Services Administration office building in the east village.

Congressional Wish List Held on Docket

The City Council's wish list for the next Congress was introduced this week, but not approved. I haven't gone over this in detail, but here's a few things that caught my eye:

• Their transportation wish list contains nothing for public transit. All of the transportation projects mentioned were highway projects.
  
• They asked for $10 million to help solve the city's combined sewer/storm drain problem.
• The Council requests expedited funding for environmental remediation needed to turn the old Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base into an intermodal facility.
• There was also a list of housing measures the council supports, including continuing funding for community development block grants and support for measures related to foreclosures and vacant properties.
  

Although they expressed support for several key environmental programs (Specifically, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, Green Jobs Act, and expansion of Green Impact Zone funding), they failed to ask for anything that might help with our area's air quality problems. They asked for nothing, I might add, that attacks the root causes of the air quality problem. No request for federal support of complete streets. No request for funding of public transit. No request for a change to land use policies that might in the long run make public transit a better use of public money. No position on emission standards for automobiles, or for cap and trade.

City Issues $16 Million in Revenue Bonds

The Council authorized the issuing of $16 million in revenue bonds for sanitary sewers. As the name implies, revenue bonds are paid back from revenues, in this case the fees paid for sewer services. They are not repaid from general tax revenues. The bonds being issued are low-interest bonds being made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

TIF Projects

This issue always starts a debate. Under State law, the City Council has up to ten years to pass individual redevelopment projects under TIF plans. It's not unheard of for projects to be approved at the eleventh hour. Such was the case this week, when the council approved nine projects related to the River Market Tax Increment Financing plan. Of the nine separate ordinances passed this week, four were introduced on December 9, 1999. The remaining five were introduced on September 27, 2001. I'm not sure that such projects should be given public assistance without a reevaluation by the finance department. 

The River Market TIF plan covers the area roughly from the river to Independence Avenue, Broadway Bridge the Heart of America Bridge. Essentially the whole of the River Market. The portions of that plan approved last Thursday include:

• Project 5: Northwest corner of 3rd and Main.
• Project 6: A property in the East 100 block of Missouri Avenue, North side. This property appears to be Harry's Country Club.
• Project 7: Southwest corner of 2nd and Main.
• Project 9: Contains a number of lots including: 114 Delaware, 201 Wyandotte, 201 Wyandotte, 210 Delaware, 407 Grand, 315 Delaware, 415-417 Delaware, 507 Walnut, 511 Walnut, 108-110 Missouri, 509-515 Walnut, and 517 Delaware.
• Project 10: Contains a number of lots including: 200 Delaware St, 16 E 3rd Street, 200 W 5th Street, 523 Grand Blvd, and 210 W 5th Street.
• Project 12: A City-owned lot at 300 Main (the park behind the City Market).
• Project 13: A City-owned lot at 400 Main (the parking lot behind the City Market).
• Project 14: A City-owned lot at 500 Main (the parking lot on the Southwest corner of 5th and Main). 
• Project 15: A City-owned lot at 7 E 5th Street (the parking lot on the Southeast corner of 5th and Main).

You can judge or yourself whether these lots need public assistance. Most of them seem to be empty lots or businesses that are doing all right for themselves. 509 Walnut, for example, appears to be Planter's Feed.

I wish I could tell you what is going to be done at each of these locations. At the time I'm writing this, that information doesn't appear to be available.

Land Use

I read recently that the United States looses something like 400,000 acres of prime farmland annually to suburban sprawl. So, I was happy this week to find several items related to the redevelopment of tracts in the heart of the city.

• Exactly 4.14 acres near 18th and Vine were converted from low density residential to medium density residential. 
• The Council approved renovations of buildings at 37th and Main, 22nd and Central, 
• Several measures related to the redevelopment of Beacon Hill were approved (090851, 090947)

Looking Ahead

Here's a few items the the Council will consider in the coming weeks:

• The establishment of the Power and Light Oversight Commission was held on the docket one more week.
• The Finance and Audit Committee received an ordinance imposing campaign contribution limits for Mayoral and City Council elections.
• The Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee received an ordinance raising fees and permits prices on items related to Neighborhood and Community Services Department, animal health, and public safety.
• The Referred to Transportation and Infrastructure Committee received an ordinance appropriating funds for the Red Bridge Road bridge replacement.