Prime Buzz claims: Kay held secret endorsement ceremony for Brooks



Yeah, I know that politics is all about back door deals (ouch - no homo) but I thought that just referred to to the many partners that Beth Gottstein has garnered among the up and coming (ew) studs in local politics. (Note: I feel better making those jokes now that I support her and because she's a go getter!!!)

Here's a bit of the latest day old bread to fall in my lap via The Prime Buzz blog which I've heard has fewer comments than one of those Livejournal pages hosting cat photos:
Mayor Kay Barnes endorsed Alvin Brooks for mayor at a private meeting she held last Thursday with a select group of KC business leaders.

Barnes secretively arranged the 8 a.m. breakfast at the Downtown Marriott, which Brooks attended.

In her invitation on Feb. 28 to about two dozen people, Barnes wrote:

"I wish to discuss with you my thoughts on the general election which will be held only 27 days from now. I am concerned that the progress we have achieved, in large part because of your efforts, is now in jeopardy."

Among the persons invited by Barnes: Lawyers Herb Kohn, Jack Craft, David Fenley, Jerry Riffel, Michael T. White and Mike Burke.

Businessmen John Bluford, Gary Forsee, Tom McDonnell, Pete Levi, Mark Ernst, Warren Erdmen, Tom Bowser, Terrence Dunn, Charles Garney, Lee Derrough and William Zollars.
Nice. I did not know that nowadays press conferences are only for po'folk. Private seems to be the way to go, just like Prime Buzz whose authors might not realize that e-mail provides a lot of the juiciest details of any VIP room. But I digress . . .

Is it just me or do these rich white guys crowded in a room to support Brooks seem a tad unseemly? If Mayor Kay wants to come out for Brooks then why can't she do it in public? Not only would it look better but I'm guessing that she could get a hell of an echo in our empty stadium now that they're putting the glass into the thing.

Private meetings, big money donors and doubts about the future of TIF funded development deals (which the downward spiral of the stock market and the slowing economy will kill faster than Funkhouser) . . . Just seems like politics as usual as the best friends of Brooks also seem to be the worst enemies of anybody in this town who cares about KC's debt load.

Comments

  1. Now Tony is prognasticating about the stock market? Please give us your hot tips to beat the 'downward spiral'. Maybe if you learned how to make friends you could be included in the world. Keep on cryin' wolf.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's count how many of those lawyers do TIF tax-giveaway plans. Not surprisingly, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS A TIF TAX-GIVEAWAY LAWYER!!!

    Folks, they fear the gravy train may be leaving the station.

    But why would Kay Barnes and the TIF train be backing Mr. Brooks? Because in all his years on the council, he never, ever, not once, voted against a single solitary TIF plan. Every single time he had an opportunity to choose schools over development lawyers, he went for the development lawyers. Every single time he had the opportunity to choose snow removal over development lawyers, he chose development lawyers.

    Now I happen to like development lawyers. But I don't really want them choosing my next mayor . . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. any doubts i had about voting for the Funk have vanished...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Take a look at our city's iconic structures. How many were built using a combo of public/private money?

    Kansas City has a long history of building with taxpayer money- and our city is nicer because of it. It looks like a regional city (Sorry funky, this isn't PV).

    There is a crowd of anti-corporate types around Brookside that want to put in a bean counter who will halt all development as soon as he can.

    There are two campaign signs for Funkhouser at 63rd and Oak cornering an empty, vacant lot that could otherwise be developed. Kinda funny because that is what the city is going to look like when we put an auditor in charge.

    Voters have a clear choice: Vote for someone who makes sure that rich people's property taxes don't go up, or development. The realistic truth is that there is no incentive to build downtown or midtown without the government when you can bulldoze a cow pasture at half the cost in the suburbs, build a store twice as big, have higher dollar consumers and OP will still give you property tax abatement.

    Development or Vacancy. It's your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't think of a single one that was built with TIF.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oops, anonymous, I may have been mistaken when I said that I can't think of a single iconic structure built with Kansas City's TIF money. I suppose we could count the mansions that the TIF lawyers live in, and, perhaps, the JoCo Mercedes dealer . . .

    But, to balance that out, we could probably consider the iconic schools that have been deprived of funding that went, instead, to developers and their lawyers. Or the roads in front of some of those iconic building, that have potholes because of deferred maintenance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dan says:
    I may have been mistaken when I said that I can't think of a single iconic structure built with Kansas City's TIF money. I suppose we could count the mansions that the TIF lawyers live in, and, perhaps, the JoCo Mercedes dealer .
    ---------------------

    Ahh...so it all comes down to baldfaced socialism and class hatred.

    Look at Bartle Hall. How many tax dollars went into that? Union Station. Liberty Memorial. The Folly. The list goes on. Local joke that these are boondoggles, but they are attractions to people from out of town and they do define our city.

    The structures that were built with private money were built by big one-person benefactors who are now dead and their money distributed among trusts that don't think as big.

    I hope you guys hate class structure of our city enough to justify not having any more significant development.

    The K family is all dead, and Bloc monies are getting pretty depleated, and the Kemper family hasn't contributed anything of significance in years. Enjoy the new ballet house. When that's done, don't expect more deep pocket giving.

    I think it is pretty disengenous to make the 'the only people benefitted by TIF' are the lawyers when Brooks has made it clear that TIF will be enacted in the eastside. You are using a class argument to appeal to people who will be hurt by killing TIF.

    If the auditor is elected, there won't be any improvements to the city. Been to the eastside lately? Places like Ivanhoe sure could use some TIF money, and with Brooks in charge you can bet they'll get it- and rightfully so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe if the city had plenty of money to give away. But we don't. What good are shiny, new buildings subsidized with tax money when our city is crumbling around us and can't provide basic services decently?

    If we did have plenty of money, then we wouldn't have a 19th century (rat infested) sewer system that mixes poo with drainage water so it stinks in Midtown when it rains heavily.

    If we did have plenty of money, then we would have more than three (yes, THREE) animal control officers, and maybe people in my neighborhood would be able to take walks with our dogs without constant fear of being rushed by the stray Chows and Rottweilers that roam the streets.

    If we did have plenty of money, then maybe the city would have a budget for snow removal, and we could drive home in a light snow without skidding off the road, like the people who live in Johnson County can.

    If we did have plenty of money, then maybe we wouldn't have to wreck our cars driving over crater-sized potholes.

    Yep, Mr. Brooks (WHO HAS NEVER VOTED AGAINST A TIF in 8 YEARS ON COUNCIL) and his (rich, white) cronies have (mis)managed our money. It's the equivalent of buying a big-screen plasma TV on credit when you barely have enough cash to pay your water bill. (Meanwhile, I'll bet all the TIF lawyers who attended Kay's secret meeting pay cash for their plasma TVs.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. But, to balance that out, we could probably consider the iconic schools that have been deprived of funding that went, instead, to developers and their lawyers. Or the roads in front of some of those iconic building, that have potholes because of deferred maintenance.
    ---------------------------

    As someone who lived in New Orleans for years: I loved my beautiful, historic, iconic, pot-holed city.

    I'd rather have grandeur and large scale development with potholes than empty lots with great streets.

    I can get that by moving to 199th street and US 69.

    Blaming the problems at the school district on TIF is the biggest joke ever. The KCMO school district was in receivership long before TIF was ever even thought up.

    But since you brought up schools...the real problem with the KCMO schools is white flight. Fixing up historic areas downtown bring back those people who left for OP in the 80's. $300,000 condos help school districts a lot more than empty lots and vacant buildings. You can't get significant property tax amounts out of crabgrass and crackpipes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We haven't ever brought up the question that really scares the Brooksiders:

    We shouldn't have to choose between streets or development. Property taxes make sure they are both nice. OP and Leawood doesn't shine because of all the white-bread dreams and spit-shined penny loafers. It shines because they have high property taxes on individual homes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment is classic:
    "I think it is pretty disengenous to make the 'the only people benefitted by TIF' are the lawyers when Brooks has made it clear that TIF will be enacted in the eastside. You are using a class argument to appeal to people who will be hurt by killing TIF."

    Wait, wait, hasn't Mr.Brooks been a member of the city council, the body that votes to (or not to, but in his case, to) approve TIFs for 8 YEARS? And now (now that he wants to be mayor) he makes it clear that "TIF will be enacted on the eastside"?

    But the UMKC study on TIFs in Kansas City that just came out showed that:

    "88% of TIF plans are in four Council Districts (1, 2, 4, and 6) which contain the two-thirds of the city’s population who are the most affluent, best educated and least likely to be members of a minority group."

    Mr. Brooks didn't just appear out of nowhere. He has a record. People should look at it. Funkhouser, on the other hand, does not intend to "kill TIF" (and saying that over and over is just plain dishonest) but instead wants it to be used for what it was intended for. (Remember, "blighted" areas?) Projects on the Eastside are exactly what TIF should be targeted toward, but under Br. Brooks and his (rich, white) cronies, has not been.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous,

    First, there's a difference between the big box retail development of the suburbs and the mixed-used development in downtown. To even pretend we're losing out on Super Targets, Wal-Marts, and Best Buys is simply absurd.

    Second, any proof the vacant lot at 63rd and Oak is undeveloped because the city hasn't offered to pick up a portion of the development tab? Maybe it's a double lot. Maybe the owner just likes the greenspace. It's well-maintained, and I'm sure the owner pays his or her fair share of property taxes.

    Third, the current downtown/midtown redevelopment "boom" isn't occurring anywhere close to where the "rich people" live. Get your facts straight.

    Fourth, despite it being a boring suburb, Prairie Village seems to have its priorities straight. Its streets and sidewalks are in good repair. There are decent schools. Snow gets removed promptly. The parks look well-maintained. Doesn't sound to bad when you compare it to the regional city across the state border.

    Fifth, what's so bad about having an auditor as mayor? The alternative is an elderly man who mistakenly thinks candlelight vigils after every murder will stop people from shooting each other. His heart's in the right place, but he lacks results.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh nevermind. Anonymous pretty much sums it up when he writes:

    "As someone who lived in New Orleans for years: I loved my beautiful, historic, iconic, pot-holed city. I'd rather have grandeur and large scale development with potholes than empty lots with great streets."

    Great. Anonymous wants an "iconic" city with small districts that cater to tourists and the very rich but that is otherwise completely unliveable.

    And yes, I know you're talking pre-Katrina. It takes years of urban decay to get to a New Orleans level of grandeur. I'm not willing to let this town slide that far though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alvin Brooks was a council member for 8 years, you are right. He also represented a minor district with little clout in city hall. It is dishonest to say that TIF money won't go eastside with him in city hall.
    --------------------------

    you say:

    First, there's a difference between the big box retail development of the suburbs and the mixed-used development in downtown. To even pretend we're losing out on Super Targets, Wal-Marts, and Best Buys is simply absurd.

    We are missing out on mixed-use too. There is one going up right now at 135th and Roe. Condos, offices, stores, and a bank. Classic mixed use. OP abates their property taxes for business in an effort to encourage more houses. We cannot do that as cities dont have the same house to business ratio. TIF doesn't make KC more attractive than OP. It just ensures we are at least nominally competitive.
    --------------------

    You say:
    Second, any proof the vacant lot at 63rd and Oak is undeveloped because the city hasn't offered to pick up a portion of the development tab?

    So you support TIF now? I thought it was only for jewey JoCo real estate lawyers?

    The point is, a nice piece of real estate is being unused. It is kinda ironic that it is covered in Funk signs.

    -----------------------
    you said:
    Third, the current downtown/midtown redevelopment "boom" isn't occurring anywhere close to where the "rich people" live. Get your facts straight.

    --------

    Really? I live in Quality Hill. My rent is over a dollar a square foot. Lofts in River market go for 1.50 a s/f. There are half million dollar lofts in all directions. Aside from Sunset Hill, my neighborhood has the highest median income. And it was built with mixed government-private use. Anchored around a corporate tenant. Kinda like the proposed P&L district...

    Every major law firm in town, and every major city hall employee works within 2 miles of downtown. Most major banks are located there. There are enough people with incomes there to satisfy the development.
    ---------------------

    You say:
    despite it being a boring suburb, Prairie Village seems to have its priorities straight. Its streets and sidewalks are in good repair. There are decent schools. Snow gets removed promptly. The parks look well-maintained. Doesn't sound to bad when you compare it to the regional city across the state border.
    -----------------------------


    The fact that Funk keeps using PV as his 'model' is troubling. PV is only the way it is because of restrictive racial covenants not fully eradicated until the 1970's. PV would not exist if it wasn't for the racial barriers imposed on anyone who wasn't waspy enough. They were able to sink money into roads and schools because they are a first ring suburb whose inhabitants use other city's services. They didn't have to pay for pesky social services because the covenants kept the poor people out.

    PV's history is disgraceful and the fact that he cites it as a sucess shows that he isn't ready to govern for the whole city- only for the Brooksiders (who also benefitted from the same racial covenants as PV). The higher dollar areas got their TIF money. We have yet to see the projects finished, as they are on a grand scale. I think it is dirty pool for the same people who have benefitted from the situations TIF is supposed to correct to elect someone who is going to effectively end development.

    ------------------------

    you say:


    Fifth, what's so bad about having an auditor as mayor? The alternative is an elderly man who mistakenly thinks candlelight vigils after every murder will stop people from shooting each other. His heart's in the right place, but he lacks results.

    -------------

    The problem with an auditor as mayor is that there won't be any new development and, lo and behold, I bet we don't end up with the fixed streets anyway. I've voted in enough mayor's races to know that people who run on filling potholes rarely come through.

    As for Brooks being a candle-holder, perhaps. However he was also an officer in the KCMO PD when the city was de jure segregated, so he knows the unique problems and opportunies KC has to face. Candlelight vigils won't stop crime. Jobs will. Delopment produces jobs that enable people to choose a life other than crime. If those areas are so blighted that no private contractor wants to build there, it is the responsibility of the government to pick up the slack. And like it or not TIF is their method for doing that. A black mayor that represents the eastside and likes TIF is likely to help eastsiders more than a Brookside auditor who wants to cut social services and subsidized development.

    I'd rather have an idealist with a 50 year connection to the city who will continue with redevelopment than a West Virginia born and raised auditor that is going to cause development to come to a screeching halt just as they move out to other areas from downtown.



    I'm done debating this issue. I've enjoyed your responses. However since about 12 people read this blog perhaps we are wasting our time, heh?

    Have a good day everyone and don't forget to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that as a city council member for 8 years, and also being Kay's right-hand man, Mr. Brooks had plenty of "clout" at City Hall. It's just that he chose to use his clout, not to help the voters in his district who put him in office, but to to vote YES on EVERY SINGLE TIF that came before him, 88 percent of which were not in the "blighted areas" they're intended to go to, but in Kansas City's wealthiest, whitest districts.

    Also, to my knowledge, Funkhouser didn't say Prairie Village should be a "model" for Kansas City (correct me if I'm wrong) but he has pointed out that we are competing with Prairie Village -- which is where many of the urban residents who flee because of Kansas City's bad schools and pothole-littered streets - move to. (By the way, I love your implication that Funkhouser is somehow racist because he's mentioned the name of Prairie Village, which once had race covenants ... that was really ... uh, subtle.) But the fact is, that kind of talk just muddies the real issues and takes attention away from the fact that Mr. Brooks' votes to give away our schools' money to rich, white developers have hurt the black (and white) residents of Kansas City's urban core.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are two campaign signs for Funkhouser at 63rd and Oak cornering an empty, vacant lot that could otherwise be developed.

    That vacant lot is owned by the adjacent homeowner. Some folks like a little grean space next two there home. Just look at the lot with the big vegetable garden a block away.

    So are you saying we should all tear up are front lawns and give them to TIF developers?

    ReplyDelete
  17. There are two campaign signs for Funkhouser at 63rd and Oak cornering an empty, vacant lot that could otherwise be developed.

    Are you saying I could use TIFF to build myself a new house? How many private individuals have been able to use TIFF to build a new home?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The schoool district has never been in receivership.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There are two campaign signs for Funkhouser at 63rd and Oak cornering an empty, vacant lot that could otherwise be developed.

    That lot is a double lot. That "vacant" lot is the backyard of the house directly to the west of it. Look it up on the tax/gis maps at kcmo.org if you don't beleive me.

    Since backyards are just wasted space, should we also sell off the city's parkland?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous,

    Funny. Decrying suburban racism while you've been projecting your bigoted views onto others. "Jewey JoCo real estate lawyers"? Those are your words not mine buddy. But really, it's good to know what type of person you are.

    But in addition to being offensive, it's pretty clear you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

    Kansas City, like Prairie Village, has historically had restrictive racial covenants to fuel its development. The Plaza and surrounding area would not be as it is today without them. Don't lecture me on the disgraceful history of a suburb when it's clear you don't know the disgraceful history of KCMO.

    Development can and will occur without the city issuing TIF. Has in the past and will continue to do so. Again, to suggest otherwise is absurd.

    Any resulting "job creation" is likely to have little to no effect on improving people's lives. After the construction jobs leave town, the end result of the P&L district is a bunch of entry-level service industry jobs that pay at or a little above minimum wage. Can't feed a family on those wages.

    And Alvin Brooks I'm sure is a nice old man. Despite his 50 years on the scene, however, he's left little he can be proud of. He wasn't a police officer for long. His anti-crime efforts, mainly candlelight vigils, have been a joke with murder rates well above 100 the last two years. His tenure as councilman and mayor pro tem have yielded nothing of any value for the eastside or the south Kansas City district he represents. He went along to go along, and the city's worse off for it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

TKC COMMENT POLICY:

Be percipient, be nice. Don't be a spammer. BE WELL!!!

- The Management