A Streetcar Named Conspire
Comes now word that the Main Street bridge over I-670 will be closed for at least 45 days later this year to accommodate a new streetcar line.
Which, to me, begs the question: At what point did this project become fait accompli? We know that the convoluted schemes to secure “voter” approval for a 2.2-mile starter line and funding mechanisms for it produced the desired results, but a lawsuit challenging the entire project is still gathering steam in Jackson County Circuit Court. What’s the rush here?
I’m beginning to wonder. After all, the city has dipped into “other” funds to clear $6 million in engineering studies for the line, on top of an original $3 million outlay for that same purpose. And just last week, I received the first bill that would represent another $1,000 or so in the annual property-tax levy for the streetcar project. I know I’m bucking some highly influential people who support this initiative, but we still have a few questions that we would like answered before we break ground or start cutting any ribbons for this thing.
From the get-go, this whole project—estimates have soared past the $100-million figure originally given to us—has been an example of a city’s indifference to business owners. If you didn’t live inside the proposed Transportation Development District that would fund the system, you didn’t get to vote last fall on whether to set it up. Even if, as in our case, you owned property inside the district but happened to lease or only work there, and not reside in the building.
This thing has been sold as a huge economic boon for Downtown Kansas City, a trigger that will drive increased residential interest and high-density uses of properties along the path. For restaurants, nightclubs and some retailers, that might—might—become the case. Frankly, we have a hard time seeing how we as a small publishing company will benefit in any fashion—let alone by enough to recoup a grand each year—from the not-so-scalable streetcar system just two miles long, and several blocks from our building.
But re-timing a bridge replacement—and this, for a bridge that transportation officials say would have had 10 years of useful life in it without a streetcar system—to accommodate this project tells me that any and all means will be applied to making the streetcar a reality. We have a few questions, though, before that reality emerges:
• Is anyone in authority ever going to release a list of which businesses and property owners will be bearing the burden of this tax, and specifically which ones won’t? You don’t have to work for Rand McNally to see who’s going to get a free ride from any purported economic benefit of a finished line. And I haven’t heard anyone come forth with a proposal for including them at a later date.
• Is there some reason we can’t let the court challenge to this project play out before we authorize millions for engineering studies? Just this month, an appeals court judge bolstered the efforts of opponents by ruling that they need not meet the strong-arm tactic of proponents’ demands for a $20 million bond as a consequence of their opposition. Briefs and responses to the lawsuit by a pair of small business owners run well into the summer. What then, is the rush to spend on preliminary studies right now?
• Is anyone pressing for this prepared to tell us why, in Washington’s post-sequester environment, it’s any more likely KC will receive a TIGER grant than it would have in previous denial years? And does anyone remember when the backers were saying the project probably wouldn’t be feasible without that funding?
• Will someone explain to us how an expanded streetcar system—visionaries see this running to the Plaza—will be realized? Are they going to subject the costs for that added mileage to voters at large, or will they use the same restrictions that came with the start-up phase?
• Lastly: Can anyone look at either of the TDD votes from last year and tell us what percentage of those voting actually owned property in the district? I believe it would be in the single digits of those few who were eligible to vote.
This thing has failed with voters city-wide so many times I’ve lost count, and I’m deeply disappointed with the deception and manipulation that has taken place to move things this far. I’ll be honest with you: Ingram’s has a long and proud history of supporting economic development efforts across Missouri and Kansas, but particularly within KC’s metro area, and especially within the Downtown area. We think that support is the right thing to do, and we think it makes for a better, stronger metropolitan Kansas City.
As one son of the last elected Jackson County assessor, I have in my business-owner DNA a recessive gene that may give me some diabolical appreciation for taxation. But this, all of this, is ridiculous.
This project isn’t happening in a vacuum: People who own businesses within this taxing district are also subjected to that damnable KCMO earnings tax. And if they’re small businesses, they’re looking longingly at the recent elimination of income taxes in a state just a few hundred yards to their west.
As much as we strive to support and promote Downtown and KC in general, how do we look at them with a straight face and say that surrendering 7.5 percent of your income to taxing authorities just to stay put is really in your best interest?
Answers? Anybody?
Joe Sweeney
Editor-In-Chief & Publisher