Chastain issues response to City attorney’s findings
Acting through his wife and lawyer, Valerie Chastain, Clay Chastain has issued a response to the findings presented to the Kansas City Council on January 18th.
The findings presented potential issues with the initiative approved by voters. Among them were rights of way, funding, and land ownership issues.
In the response, Chastain rejects the findings. He threatens to sue even if the Council attempts to bring a revision back to voters.
Therefore in the event, upon taking office, the new mayor and city council of Kansas City delay implementing the voter-approved light rail plan by attempting to either repeal it or amend it significantly and resubmit it to the voters, these actions will be met with a legal challenge. Legal action will also be taken if said same body sits on the initiative and takes no action to begin implementing it in a timely fashion.
While the old adage of "careful what you wish for" is true, nothing prevents a measure passed by voters from being revised by voters. Things could get (more) interesting here.
Full document: Legal Response
4 comments4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
If Clay Chastain truly wanted light rail, he would understand the necessity of compromise and working within a budget to achieve that goal. What good will a light rail line do if bus service to and from that light rail line is discontinued to pay for the rail? As I have said in other posts, I am pro-light rail and use the metro 4-5 times a week for my commute; however, light rail that reduces bus options is not the way to go – at some point, the city should just move past Chastain. His actions and comments since November have had a detrimental impact on the implementation of light rail . . .
The more we move forward, the more the SmartMoves plan looks like the most sensible way to improve transit. Keep in mind that part of the problem here is the lack of financial support for KC Metro from the state of Missouri – if the state would view transit as a higher authority, then maybe there would be more money for the projects.
Jim,
Bus service won’t be reduced. One of the requirements for Federal matching money is that you maintain your current bus system. We’ll never get federal money until we replace the 3/8 cent tax that light rail is taking away from buses – which ultimately a tax increase elsewhere.
I agree that a state contribution is sorely needed. Most cities building light rail have received a big state contribution. Unfortunately are political leaders are putting all of their eggs in the Federal basket. They aren’t making any serious attempt to lobby Jeff City for help.
“The findings presented potential issues with the initiative approved by voters. In the response, Chastain rejects the findings.”
He rejects the finding that the voters of Kansas City can’t force NKC and Gladstone to allow a rail line to be built accross their city? He rejects the finding that the selected route will force the city to breach contracts with private developers?
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the city were to force these issues, they might be subject to lawsuits from the affected parties.
If Mr. Chastain doesn’t compromise, he won’t be remembered as the guy who made light rail happen. He’ll be remembered as the guy who killed light rail.
Eric – I agree with you about the bus reduction part; you are absolutely right that the feds will not help KC if the bus service is reduced. However, if Clay goes through with his suit (Tuesday nite 10p.m. news)it will be over – among other things – the changing of the funding mechanism to include federal support. If I remember correctly, the original proposal stated that the 3/8 cent tax is all that would be used to build the line – and Clay’s suit will be over changes made by the city (including the changing of the funding mechanism). If – on the outside chance Clay goes through with his suit and wins – then there would be a reduction of bus service.
I agree with your statements about the state politicians holding out for federal funding – but hey, they are just responding to their constituents and clearly Missouri is not a state where taxes and by extension gov’t are seen as good things.
It is so different in Minnesota – my homestate – (in some ways I feel like an exile “trapped” in KC!) where the people/citizenry just voted to devote an extra 120 million dollars a year for transit related projects – no wonder MPLS/StPaul has an excellent transit system and KC struggles. As long as I live in Kansas City, I will support transit (I currently use the metro 4-5 times a week) related projects; however, at some point, the transit/light rail/bus issue has to be addressed in a serious fashion that takes into account more than one indidual’s insistence on his plan.
Apologies in advance if I have mistaken what Clay’s potential suit will be over . . . I am just glad that the city is finally talking about transit!