Monday, February 18, 2019


Kansas City is ruled by low voter turnout and City Hall capitalizing on most people tuning out their embarrassing antics.

A recent fact check offers a glimpse of democracy subverted right here in River City.

A note about funding from an airport insider . . .

"Good points in this e-mail . . . The city is deliberately avoiding the use of General Obligation (GO) bonds mentioned in this comment because that would trigger a need to get voter approval. Instead, the city is using Special Obligation Bonds, issuing them through the sketchy Industrial Development Authority presided over by top city officials. This is a deliberate tactic designed to avoid letting this out-of-control project anywhere near voters. Who believes voters would approve this crap storm?"

Now here's the word:

CFRG KC: Over 80% of the KCMO Registered Voters DID NOT vote for the airport as it is being presented

For over a year now, we’ve been hearing about how many of the registered voters voted for the new “single terminal” airport? This has been a total effort on the part of City Hall including some mayoral candidates to deceive the electorate. Read the ballot language below. It says nothing about a "single terminal" airport. The vote was simply to tear down the existing airport and replace it. The replacement could be a remodeled structure.

It’s time to take a look at how many of the registered voters did not vote for the airport as it is being presented to the voters.

First let’s look at the ballot language for some clarification:


"Shall the City of Kansas City be authorized to construct a new passenger terminal at Kansas City International Airport and demolish existing terminals as necessary, with all costs paid solely from the revenues derived by the City from the operation of its airports and related facilities, and without the issuance of general airport revenue bonds unless such general airport revenue bonds have received prior voter approval? YES / NO"

The ballot gives the city permission to construct a new passenger terminal. It does not say it has two be a “single terminal”. A terminal can consist of several buildings. It does not say they have to demolish the existing terminals. It says they can demolish the existing terminals “as necessary” (in an effort to construct a new facility). In our opinion this would allow for a remodeled terminal complex. Let's not rule it out.

It appears if GO bonds are going to be used, there has to be another vote. To our knowledge, there has not been an election for voter approval of any GO Bonds for the airport project, new construction or remodel.

We’ve heard repeatedly about how many registered voters voted for the proposed airport, let’s look at how many registered voters did not vote for this proposed airport...

*This number is comprised of registered voters who voted no on question #1 and registered voters who voted no by not voting at all. If they were for the project, they would have voted.

Let’s not be fooled. Regardless of what you’ve been hearing; The majority of the registered voters did not support this ballot issue. Over 80% of registered voters voted NO one way or another.

Have you been misled? If so by who?

Developing . . .


Anonymous said...

The numbers on the airport vote are revealing, though not perhaps in the way this piece suggests. It turns out that about 80% of voters expressed no opinion on the airport; they didn't say yes or no. What does this mean? Most voters didn't care about the issue, one way or another. Fifteen percent of voters evidently saw the new airport as important enough to cast a vote and about 70% of these liked the idea of a new airport. What's the lesson here? A minority were focused on the airport and most of these like the idea of a new airport. If a majority don't like what's happening now with the airport, you might conclude this is what they get when they can't be bothered to pay attention and vote accordingly.

Anonymous said...

It's not like City Hall lied about the entire thing from the word go or anything.

Anonymous said...

What percentage of those who voted for the new KCI were contractors, sub-contractors, potential suppliers, and union and non-union workers who expected to profit from a new airport?

Anonymous said...

^^^ all of them!

That’s how unions roll baby!

Anonymous said...

The airport deal has been a scam from day one and is going according to Slie's plan.

Anonymous said...

Stupid voters. Don't pay attention, you get shit on. Don't get out of your recliner, you get shit on. Don't vote, don't complain when KC finds ways to extract more of your money. No fucking sympathy here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The results and voting numbers for this fiasco are really no different than most KCMO elections.
The insiders, those to whom promises have been made, and anyone who will benefit financially, as well as the city do-gooders, most of who are elderly and who remember the "good 'ole days" of municipal glory, vote yes.
A handful of people vote no.
But most residents have given up on the idea that mayors and councils make even an attempt to "represent" them by focusing on providing services that actually affect their lives.
And they're working to support themselves and their families and actually have lives, and the certainly don't have time to hang around city hall all day or even to attend the "town hall meetings", where they've been lied to over and over again.
So they don't vote at all.
The numbers will be the same in the next mayoral/council elections.
It never changes.

Anonymous said...

Blacks will get out and protest Mark Alford's joke about not being an organ grinder's monkey, but can't be bothered to learn about any issues affecting their taxes and the taxes of their children and grandchildren for the next 25 years or longer. Anti-Trump students who will march with their stupid parents at anti-Trump rallies because it makes them feel special (and stand in line for days for the newest iPhone), but won't take five minutes to research judges on the ballot, look at the voting records of state representatives, etc. Is it any wonder that the crap storm of politics and spending is so endemic to Kansas City?

Anonymous said...

Look up the definition of airport and compare it to the definition of terminal. Voters voted for a terminal, whether it's new or remodeled.

Anonymous said...

Ironically one of the most un-democratic of our political institutions is the over abundance of election dates we have. These tiny-turnout elections cost a lot of money and are favored by school districts, small taxing jurisdictions, municipalities etc. And we see the consequences. People need to pay atttentiom and vote dammit even in the local races.
Thanks, radish

Anonymous said...

If you didn't vote don't complain.

Anonymous said...

Well if it wasn't for the low turnout, you would never have been able to get the petition for the vote through in the first place. Live by the low turnout, die by the low turnout.

And if you give a crap about the issue, show up and vote. Otherwise, shut up.

Anonymous said...

Most issue elections, including special tax and airport quetsions are foregone conclusions. There is big money and professional organization on one side, and neither on the other side. Generally the media play cheerleaders for the money side. After a few months of propaganda, the electorate are pretty well brainwashed, and it shows at the polls. The forces behind the election then claim that the voters have spoken and given them a mandate, while in actuality the opposing side never got a fari turn at bat.

Anonymous said...

By that logic, 80% of Kansas City residents silently approved!

So we're all good!

Anonymous said...

I is from Johnson Countie. I done did not yet vote, per se, but gonna use the new glam terminal and get some food and suds.
Stick that bill to KC suckers.. high rate interest and make them squeal!
Ha me and family will snicker as we glam the new airport and watch Bow-Tie look good as he picks up trophies at newspaper that only honky tonky read

Anonymous said...

743 that like saying i knew what Open Spaces was before the end of October and did not have to look up the festivial name before typing it in just now.

Anonymous said...

7:16, and Open Spaces was just a slightly bigger waste of time and effort.