KC Light Rail

According to a late report from the Star, the legal challenge to prevent the Nov. 4 vote has been denied. Absentee voting began Sept. 23 — well before the suit was brought — and the City Council followed procedure by unanimously voting to approve the ordinance without being read on three separate occasions (anyone who watches Channel 2 could have predicted the outcome on this one).

If you've already voted absentee in Kansas City or North Kansas City, we'd like to hear from you before Election Day. Drop us a line at [email protected].

All the answers were in today's Star. Still got questions? If not, please check out this great article in today's Washington Post about the rebirth of the American City through the lens of the presidential campaign (it's kinda transit-related, we promise).

From the Sun Gazette.

In the bigger picture, light rail is part of being a thriving metro, something Kansas City struggles to maintain. Light rail also adds to the vitality and life of a city that an extended bus system simply cannot do alone.

Fact: KCATA will be issuing its own debt for light rail construction financing and that debt will have no impact on the city's current debt load or it's bond rating. Period.

Don't believe us? See it in print here (Article III, Section 7).

Don't be fooled by salacious blog posts prompted by whispers from the opposition. The City is NOT on the hook for any light rail debt. It's no different than KCI having its own bond rating.

In fact, the city's bond rating is still doing very well. Any many are touting bonds as a recession-proof investment.

Did that catch your attention? Good.

More old money joins the Committee for Sensitive Transfers — or whatever they're calling themselves now — with a big contribution: Tom McDonnell of DST.

According to Prime Buzz, McDonnell and his company also helped bankroll the 2001 opposition group (it's all the same people now… surprised?). While acting as a mostly positive force in urban core development, DST is the recipient of lots of public subsidies and incentives. This begs the question: Why would McDonnell oppose a project that improves the infrastructure along 14-mile swath of the city?

Your guess is as good as ours, especially when you read this Business Journal quote from 2004:

"For several years, I have envisioned a downtown Kansas City enriched by the cultural and residential presence that I have encountered in other cities in the United States, Canada and Europe."

Yeah, that Europe. It's no coincidence that Europe had roads first and rail later. Why should KC be any different?