A Desire Named Streetcar

For those of you who thought that potentially wasteful capital improvement in the "City of Fountains" was limited to a massive study group that seems intent to replace a perfectly good airport with one that's better suited to TSA security features and which has a better Food Court, "au contraire mon ami".  (That's French.  Look it up.)   

Not only is KC attempting to convince local taxpayers into funding the replacement of an airport known nation-wide as one of the most friendly to get into and out of at a cost them over $1.2 billion, it's also looking to add, or replace, upgrade (depending on who you talk to) chunks of its existing (and mostly under-used) public transportation system of buses with the more attractive (and expensive) alternative of streetcars. 

The 'initial phase' of this Streetcar system, which will run for some 2.2 miles, is ready to begin construction at an estimated cost of about $102 million.  While some $20 million in federal assistance has been secured (we thank you all for your contribution, of course), the bulk of the cost (along with its inevitable cost overruns) is to be paid by a 25-year, one-cent sales tax that will fall only on the neighborhood in which this phase of the system is to be built.  This tax was approved by voters in a rather shrewd ballot maneuver in which only residents of the area surrounding the line were able to vote on its approval, while business owners in the same area (unless they lived in their buildings) were not.  

While this new streetcar will be rather limited in route, it's expected by supporters to bring not only new businesses, but new (and rather high-priced) residential living to the area.  Perhaps I'm missing something in the thinking here, but other than the 'gee whiz' factor or riding the lines soon after their opening, I fail to see its benefits that new businesses will receive.  

While they will certainly get to be subject to the 'sales tax district' paying for the line, it would be surprising to find that their workers will get to use the line for their normal daily commute.  I say that because most of the residential projects being discussed in this tax district involve condos that go for $250,000+ and apartments that rent for $1,200 per month and more.  Even if we assumed that people shopping for housing in this range were those who normally ride public transportation (yeah, right ...) we're left with fact that other than the City Market, this area is a food desert with no grocery stores within the line's commuter route.

In typical government fashion however, that an expensive and perhaps unsustainable capital improvement project should never be limited by practicality or common sense, supporters are quick to tout that 'this is only the beginning'.  Before the initial stretch of track has even begun to be laid, before this concept has proven itself with increased ridership levels, increased interest in the neighborhood involved, or has in any way proved that it can pay for the massive capital investment involved; the city is already planning to add to it.   

Kansas City's City Council has in fact recently approved almost $2.5 million in funding to a consultant team to produce a route expansion study. A route on Main Street from Union Station to either 63rd Street or 75th Street, a second route from Independence Avenue that goes east to a yet-to-be determined end point, and a third from Linwood Boulevard or 31st Street to yet another undetermined end point have already been approved for further consideration.  If this expected additional 8.8 miles of track is finally approved by the city (and the bandwagon seems to have already gathered some serious momentum), it's estimated to cost taxpayers some $545 million.

Regardless of the apparent Dyslexic nature of this title, it's obvious that this is not about nostalgia over an old Tennessee Williams play written in 1947 or even a 1951 Elia Kazan movie starring Marlon Brando.  In fact, rather than even being a play on words of the title of the play "A Streetcar Named Desire" this post should probably have been filed under "Field of Dreams".  For it's the iconic line from this 1989 Phil Alden Robinson cinematic effort that, "If you build it, he will come" that seems to rule all discussion on the subject.  Speaking of discussion, Kevin Costner (who starred in the effort) might relate to Kansas City's legislators, who appear to be 'hearing voices' where subject is concerned.  Not only that, but his character's single minded devotion to nonsensical construction in the face of sanity, if not common sense certainly defines the thinking in KC on this pipe dream of a project.

 

Heads In The Clouds, Faces In The Trough

Every city seems to have a pie-in-the-sky project or two that seems to outweigh common sense, financial sensibilities, and even political realities.  Through a little known branch of Einstein's theories which today's physicists have yet to properly recognize, let alone define; these projects usually turn themselves into a form of black hole that sucks in both political and financial capital in. 

In the City of Fountains, that project is for Kansas City to replace its user-friendly, three terminal airport  (one of which is currently being closed down from lack of use) with a new single terminal facility.  And the cost for tearing out an existing airport that many consider the most user-friendly in the country to put a single terminal monstrosity (Can you say Midway airport?), mostly for the purposes of streamlining the terminal security process and adding a few terminal shops and eateries to the mix is $1.2 billion before in-project changes, delays and increases in materials, and the cost overruns that are always involved with such massive government projects begin to have their way with it.  (Can you say "Big Dig"?)

Perhaps most bizarrely, the city and the Aviation Director in charge of the maintenance of the existing facility Mark VanLoh, is spending $117,000 of the taxpayer's cash on a PR campaign to show that he's apparently incapable of maintaining the existing 30 year-old facility in a move designed to push for its replacement.  He notes in an article in the Kansas City Star that, "the public doesn't see the many ways in which those terminals are deteriorating and can't be remodeled to meet the needs of the 21st century aviation world".  There are some who think that seems rather at odds with the Department's PR efforts only 9 years ago, when it was touting the success story of spending some $258 million in taxpayer funds designed to remodel and update those very same terminals.  And what about the millions spent to add underground parking garages to each of those terminals not so many years before. that  Where do both of these rather significant investments in the airports original future fit with this new plan for its eventual destiny?

What does the city's leader, Mayor Sly James (yes, that's his real name) have to say about this:  "I think what happened is that the concept got pushed out before we figured out how to push it out".  Yep, you guessed it ... bad PR.  Of course, every poll of local citizens shows that they are currently not in favor of building such a terminal, but what difference should that make?  (After all, no one listens to the people when they're not interested in letting the government spend their money.)  In fact, when a small local group started a petition effort to stop the city from pursuing the spending of taxpayer money in pursuit of the project, the City Attorney ruled such a citizen's effort 'premature' and invalid as a consequence.

Imagine the hubris!  It isn't about the fact that KC doesn't need a new terminal now in the wake of an ever-shrinking airline industry.  It's not that the city isn't already committed to building one of these black hole projects in the form of a 2-mile long streetcar system of doubtful use, except perhaps as a stepping stone to expanding it.  It's not even that like many other cities of its size, the city doesn't suffer grave infrastructure issues where streets, bridges, and water and sewer systems are involved; and that will only be solved by major increases in some form of equally massive projects funded by tax and fee increases to its citizenry.  The real problem with the airport project is that the Mayor and his minions have not been allowed to do the sales pitch for it at their own time in and their own way.

Unfortunately, those of you who live for the power, influence, and the vast amounts of cash involved with such projects should have no real fear however.  A new Kansas City Airport appears to have entered the event horizon of this non-Newtonian phenomena.  The shear mass of such a project will be difficult to slow down, especially as it gathers the mounting acceleration of taxpayer-funded, government-approved gravity well of a PR campaign and the refusal of government at any level to give up on such things until it gets it own way.  There's money to be made in such massive government projects for big contractors, for union workers, and for government bureaucrats who get to dispense these vast funds.  There's also a good bit political power and future fund raising to be garnered for any politicians who serve the purposes of these funding black holes.  There's little mystery to the result of question of the airport's future therefore, when those in charge have their heads in the clouds and their faces in the trough.

The Dark Side of Democracy

The voices of Democracy have spoken this week in Kansas City, and a new transit system will be implemented in a very small part of the downtown area.  According the Kansas City Star, voters approved, by a margin of 344 to 198, a 25 year property tax increase to fund a $100 million, two mile long streetcar system.  One might think that the only thing smaller than the size of what's being called a transit system is the voter turnout that approved it.  That turnout however, is not the result of voter apathy, but instead the result of what some might consider an abuse of the democratic process which created a 'special downtown tax district' to achieve its ends.  All well and good you might say.  If locals want to tax themselves for capital improvements of this nature, it's their right to do so.  Would you consider it equally fair however, if you knew that this property tax, and the 1 cent sales tax increase that's the other part of the funding for this project, could only be voted on by residents of the tax district? 
Then again, according to the KC Star piece, this isn't going to cost that much anyway.  "The owner of a $200,000 condo will pay $266 in additional taxes. That’s an 8.7 percent residential property tax increase.  Commercial property owners will see their property taxes go up an additional $1,500 for every $1 million in market value on their property. That’s a 5 percent commercial property tax increase.".   It's a song we've heard sung before.  Of course many of those residents voting were more probably tenants rather than owners, who though living in the special tax district would not be subject to the property tax imposed (at least, not right away).  Is it fair to you that owners of businesses in this new tax district, most of whom do not also live on the premises of the business they own, were not allowed to vote on the tax that was about to be imposed upon them?

Would you find the whole process disingenuous then, if you realized that the burden of the sales tax as well would fall far more on industrial and commercial enterprises selling in the district than on residents, who still had the freedom to purchase outside of the area where the tax will be imposed? Would it likewise be considered voter disenfranchisement where KC residents outside the district were concerned that they weren't allowed to vote for the $2 million dollars annually that the city says it will now be contributing to the operation of this 2 mile transit system.  How about the fact that the city's water utility system, which like so many other metropolitan systems around the country is suffering from ill-kept and horribly out-of-date infrastructure, has announced that it will be contributing $4.5 million to the construction of the system?  When does a water department need to contribute to a transportation system, rather than their own desperately needed infrastructure improvements?  Why is it permissible, at a time when they are raising rates, for them to invest in anything other than their own needs?

But wait, there's more!  Without knowing whether this 2 mile system will garner any ridership, let alone enough to be able to come close to paying for itself, local politicians are already looking at expanding and incorporating this toy train system into a proposed $650 million dollar plan for two commuter rail lines to connect outlying areas with downtown.  These elected officials are right now pushing for yet another vote, this one for a county-wide 1 cent sales tax which could help pick up the slack (and spread the burden) of funding for these first street cars, with future tax revenues to provide a steady revenue stream for more to come. And of course, as with all public transportation systems, the federal government is supplying funding as well, contributing an initial investment of $18 million so far in (you guessed it, taxpayer funding) to prime the pump; something which none of the rest of us were allowed to vote on.

Now remember that this is a part of the city which currently has public transportation in form of buses.  All of the money being spent for this change will not provide something that currently does not exist, but merely a shinier version of it for a neighborhood.  And while each step of this process could ostensibly be considered the use of the democratic process to achieve a desired goal, somehow it feels like there's a taint to this particular use of the process that can't be easily removed.  While in theory nothing done has been illegal, what has been done cannot easily be considered admirable either.  Worst of all, the fact that a special interest group has successfully crossed over to the dark side of the democratic process here will no doubt inspire other groups to similar efforts in imitation of this twisted process.

I can't help but wonder if even the over 300 that voted for this toy transit system into being this week won't feel some doubts about it in the days and years ahead?  I wonder how thrilled they'll be while their streets are torn up and access to homes and businesses are restricted and the city attempts to lay track?  I wonder what commitment to upkeep and repair such street cars will continue to provide if the system remains an isolated anomaly and doesn't get to expand throughout the rest of the city?  Will this form of transit ultimately add or subtract to the value of homes and businesses in the area?  How happy residents will be with it, knowing that this performance of their civic duty will mean living in the highest tax district in the city?  Mostly however, I wonder if in the years to come, they and the city will be proud of the path that they've forged this week; or will they simply feel that they've sold their souls to the political Sith lords on the dark side of democracy? 

 
                  

If You Build It, They Will Come

Kansas City is a classic example of a modern Midwestern city that aspires to be oh so much more than it is.  Not content to remain a quaint little place with the nickname of "City of Fountains", they want to be a player. Like many of these urban 'wanna be's', it seeks to do so through massive infrastructure projects; hoping that by building them, something (or someone) will come.  All of these projects of course, come with a price tag, but what are such costs to a city attempting to make a name for itself.

Like many before them, KC encouraged the building of condos, and provided lavish property tax incentives in the hopes of luring young urban professionals to move downtown.  Unfortunately, they weren't smart enough to realize that they couldn't create real and sustainable neighborhoods if they couldn't force retailers necessary to creating such an atmosphere to move with them, providing everything from groceries to shoelaces (and they couldn't).  

Not dismayed by this apparent lack of urban planning success, someone in the city determined that their failure was merely one of scope and scale, and that to address this what they needed was a grander plan, including perhaps a shining glass bowl of a arena.  So they built the "Sprint Center" as a state-of-the-art facility with some private investment, but also over $200 million financed by the city through future hotel tax revenue.  When completed, they had indeed provided a superior downtown entertainment experience ... but unfortunately it sat empty most nights because the city had no professional sports franchise to anchor or support this rather pricey venue (and still doesn't).  (As a side note, not having such an entertainment venue in use didn't help the hotel tax revenues much either.)


No matter.  If they couldn't get entertainment to come to the arena, they'd build some around it.  So the next thing you know, taxpayer money was being invested in what would come to be known as the "Power and Light District".  This area would provide shops, clubs, and restaurants that would bring people downtown when nothing was happening at the Sprint Center; and add to the entertainment value of downtown when there was.  Of course nothing in life's free, and like it's predecessor, entertainment venues can be rather expensive.  The Power and Light District was expected to be a investment development of some $850 million dollars.  The city however, found itself financing some $180 million of it in loans as part of the deal.

But as Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman will tell you, the only reason that government investment fails in its efforts to stimulate the economy is because they fail to spend enough, or double down every time that there's an opportunity.  Kansas City was listening.

A group of city officials is now scrambling to put together paperwork in time to meet the application deadline for a Federal DOT grant of $25 million for ... (wait for it) ... a downtown street car system.  Obviously the city needs a new specialized transportation system to allow the few people who got suckered into the downtown condos (and who are now broke on these pricey units with their mortgages upside down), along with those who aren't going to the Sprint Center (because there's no game going on), and those not going to the Power and Light District (because the venues aren't enough to attract enough people to make this a break even proposition) to get from point to point within a very limited area of downtown. 

Besides, if they can get the Federal funding (Which is free after all, having fallen off the federal money tree, right?) the city will then only have to finance another $75 million of a transportation system that will go into an area already serviced more than adequately by buses.  Of course tearing up streets to put in tracks will probably have a deleterious effect on the businesses that this system is designed to serve until it's completed, perhaps even bankrupting them in this already lousy economy; but when it's done, there will be a beautiful (at least for a while) system to serve the businesses that will no longer need it.

You know, looking back in history, we like to throw stones at the 'robber-barons' of last couple of centuries, but at least they didn't ask for government bailouts when things failed to pan out.  Oh sure, many of them, like their more modern counterparts, got their share of government subsidies (in land, if not in cash); but they ended up being some of the most generous people in this nation's history.  Sure they were 'evil capitalists and shameless profiteers', but a lot of their ill gotten gains later went into the building schools, libraries, museums, and theaters to promote education and the arts in projects that didn't cost the city a cent.

Say what you will about sports owners of the past: that they abused "The Reserve Clause", failed to pay players their fair market value, and waited far too long to allow African-Americans into professional sports; but at least they built their own stadiums.  They may have bought and sold player contracts like they were trading in the futures market, but they didn't ask fans and non-fans alike to risk municipal and state funds on monuments to their own egos.

Kansas City has I fear, become the rule rather than the exception with its machinations, and few such projects here or anywhere else would even be attempted these days without a federal grant, state assistance, and municipal bonds to offset actual costs that will inevitably reach 100% budget overruns (if you're lucky).

In the end, what do any of these cities have to show for such city largess.  The average stadium or dome is lucky to last 30 years without demolition and replacement, often long before the last of the debt is paid off. Kemper Arena for example, once the shining jewel of Kansas City, now sits on demolition row as planners seek a smaller, friendlier, and more intimate venue to replace it.  The fact that KC can't support two such arenas only points to how fickle our civic leaders can be when there's a shiny new toy to play with. The disrepair and shabby condition in which Kemper is currently kept only heralds its doom and reincarnation.

But in the end, neighborhoods will rise and fall on the fickle nature of real estate investors as they always have; and even tax incentives won't produce a viable neighborhood, only a speculative one.  Entertainment Districts will go in and out of fashion with the regularity of women's hemlines,  and the latest craze (or taxpayer-backed project) will be hyped as the next salvation of the city while the plywood gets nailed over the windows of its predecessor.  Current public servants meanwhile, will merely hope that no one will notice that the last one is far from paid off while touting the benefits of the next.  The newest arenas become old quickly, and less attractive to fickle sports team owners who want a better scoreboard, owner's box, or more clever naming rights.  Before we know it, Kansas City will soon find itself doing urban renewal on what now are its two great attractions.  

Spring training is all but over and the baseball season is upon us.  Soon the Royals (who along with the Chiefs, got $575 million in taxpayer-funded stadium upgrades) will once more be seeking a prize that has eluded them since 1985.  City officials will likewise be misguidedly hoping that their investment will in some way be paid off by those coming for this year's All Star game, hoping the notoriety will likewise make them a winner.  

As it often does every baseball season,  hope spring eternal that such winners will come their way (being a Cubs fan, I ought to know).  For city officials however, real hope will undoubtedly be saved for the next city financed project; a dream that it will be the one that finally brings them a winner and makes a name for Kansas City.  Well, surprise gentlemen: I've got a new one for you already.  I vote that we rename KC from the 'City of Fountains' to the 'Field of Dreams', for it's obvious that its leaders are overcome with the spirit of the Kevin Costner film, "if you build it, they will come".

(For my friends in Toledo chuckling at the pratfalls of my current place of residence.  Don't laugh too quickly.  Instead, take this as the cautionary tale it was meant to be.)