Chastain threatens legal action

  Valerie Chastain, wife of Clay Chastain, says a lawsuit is likely if the new mayor and council try to change, repeal, or resubmit the light rail plan to voters.

   Read the release here.

   If  "the new mayor and city council of Kansas City delay..by attempting to either repeal it or amend it significantly and resubmit it to voters, these actions will be met with a legal challenge," the release says.

   Nowhere, though, does she explain what the basis of such a challenge would be.  The council, under the charter, clearly has the right to repeal any ordinance passed by initiative:

    Sec. 704. Repeal of initiated ordinances.
No ordinance adopted at the polls under the initiative shall be amended or repealed by the Council within one year of such adoption except by the affirmative vote of nine (9) members thereof. Thereafter such ordinance may be amended or repealed as any other ordinance.

  And the council clearly has the right to place matters on the ballot.

  The release also responds to claims that the approved ordinance is unconstitutional and impossible.

Posted by Dave Helling

Comments

[grunt]

One must assume that this issue will be raised frequently behind closed doors until the (9) nine members of the council are persuaded it is in their personal interest to overturn 'the will of the public'. Taking in account this is an election year, I bet that will happen sometime before KC selects its new mayor.

[winterhawk]

I'm sorry but someone has to ask this question and it would be nice to know the answer - what is in all this for Clay Chastain? I hate to be suspect, but for crying out loud he doesn't even live here and continues to push this issue. I am a HUGE fan of light rail - I'm a HUGE fan of a working rail system - but it seems to me that the proper location for this thing would be lines that connect Blue Springs, Olathe, and Kansas City North to downtown KC - it works in Sacramento. Mr. Chastain has presented a plan for tourists - i just want to know what is in it for him.

[Brainiac]

Clay Chastain is a meddling idiot. I agree with winterhawk: why is Chastain doing this? I think he's an egomaniac and he just loves the fact that his crazy plan was actually approved by the voters. Great idea: let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a light rail system connecting downtown to ..... the zoo????? He's got to be kidding!

[craig]

winterhawk,
The first reasonalbe post I have ever read regarding light-rail.
Thank you.

[DaveKCMO]

just because you leave your hometown doesn't mean the place becomes insignificant. chastain has been consistent about his motives in public statements.

kudos to chastain for maintaining focus and keeping the mayor/council race interesting. the timing is impeccable!

[Mod Dem]

She may not have a legal leg to stand on, but repealing his plan without a suitable plan in replace of it would certainly be a PR nightmare for the council. The people have spoken. They want light rail. If this plan doesn't work, the council better damn well give us a plan similar to Clay's that will work.

[A-Train]

Did Clay meet Valerie by getting her name off his numerous petitions? The size of this city doesn't warrant Light Rail, just buses. Lets put the money to more good use by fixing the existing roads and improving the infrastructure. The only traffic jam in this city is the Grandview Triangle. Who is going to give up their car for Light Rail? Not me! Voted NO on this issue

[Proud Liberal]

Putting aside opinions regarding Chastain and/or lightrail for a moment. Is anyone else besides me upset that our city charter is written to allow a vote of 9 of 13 council members to overturn a vote of the people? It seems to me that a city-wide popular vote should trump the city council.

[Studly]

Maybe Clay should change is his last name to Chastised since that's what seems to have happened to him.

[Keith]

Chastain, in yesterday's Letters, wrote: "When does a majority vote in favor of an issue not count anymore? Presumably, when The Kansas City Star says so."

Let me rephrase that for him. "When does a majority vote opposed to an issue not count anymore? Presumably, when Chastain says so."

I wonder if Valerie is licensed in Missouri to practice her husband's shysteristic egotism?

Unlike Chastain, I work and shop in the city. Tell me, Clay, why I should pay for this dream of yours? Why not a system that serves the commuting public? If gondolas are such a great tourist attraction, why don't YOU build them and make a pile of money?

This reeks of personal ego.

[Jeff]

"The only traffic jam in this city is the Grandview Triangle"?? I submit for your consideration I-70 from Blue Springs to downtown and I-35 from Overland Park to downtown. Ihave lived in both commutes at different times in my professional life, and they are both ridiculous. And all buses do is put a bigger vehicle in the middle of the same mess. I cannot and will not ride the bus because there is ONE bus that goes to my part of town and I cannot make use of it while also meeting my job and family responsibilities. However, a true rail plan that has trains constantly running along all lines will be something that I can use since I am not limited to one time per day, and it does not deal with the rest of the auto traffic.

[Carl]

Valerie Chastain is licensed to practice law in Missouri.

[Rusty]

"The only traffic jam in this city is the Grandview Triangle"?? You obviously don't have a car.

[Brent]

Proud Liberal, they have to have a claus like that to allow the council to overturn things. If such an claus didn't exist, it would be fairly easy, theoretically, for someone in say Overland Park to get enough petitions to put some form of segregation on the ballot, get enough people to vote on it, and then it'd be a law...even though it's not constitutional. It also prevents someone for putting something on the ballot with no funding behind it and forcing the council to act on it (which is sort of what has happened in this case).

Most people I know aren't in love with Chastain's plan (especially the Gondolas) but I think voters were sending a message that we are way past due for this as a city...and this is a start...I don't care if they re-work the plan--but they owe us something...and quickly.

[Tony]

A-Train, there are many cities that are smaller than KC that have light rail. And the fact that you refuse to consider any other option than your car is what makes you an idiot.

[A-Train]

Tony: name the cities? You must be related to Chastain as the plan is not possible due to Federal dollars not being available. I'd rather have my gov't spend their energy and resources on builing new roads and making the existing ones better.

[don]

Lets have a vote of the public to keep allowing Chastain to stir up the pot in a city that he doesn't even live in or to banish the idiot forever.

[Brian]

This is a case of Kansas City's underlying Napoleonic Syndrome. Some of the people think we're a much bigger city than we really are, and can you blame them if you look anywhere north, south, east, or west up to Minneapolis, Dallas, St. Louis or Denver? Others think we can miraculously become a bustling metropolis and therefore we need light rail. And a select few(realize who we're dealing with here..there are a lot of halves :) actually would use and see a real need for light rail.

I see the first group of people as the midwest-centric sort of folk who really haven't been to places that need light rail. They see magically-appearing tourists with a pressing need to use light rail to get around, from the airport to downtown and the plaza. Yes, there is a surcharge on rental cars now, but how many people do you REALLY know that would be tourists around Kansas City and not want to rent a car? We're a bigger city, but nothing unreasonable.

And regarding posts about TRAFFIC?! I used to live in a larger city (Philadelphia), and when all we have to deal with is a short rush hour wait in a select few parts, we really are blessed. Those of you complaining about traffic seem to forget that once you get off these trains (you presume they're crowded, yes?), you have to wait in traffic in the lot and outside. A little secret for you: it doesn't go straight to your house, and in a smaller city like this, it probably won't be too close to your house, either. In the end, it would probably take less time and be a lot more work. But, hey, you'll save a few gas dollars!

Essentially we're the short guy wearing baggy clothes to look a lot bigger. Instead, we should focus our efforts on developing downtown and making people want to visit first. Then, if it gets bad down there and traffic actually gets to anything like what the larger cities have to deal with, light rail will warrant itself.

This Chastain guy just has a strange agenda, and he's now working with a chip on his shoulder. Reason is beyond him, I would think.

Yeah A-Train, more roads is the key. More sprawl, more fumes, more uncertainty as oil prices go up and down and in and out incessantly. Money well spent.

[Brian]

Hey, guy above me:

When does more roads create more cars? I must've slept through that economics lecture.

[BeProudAmerica]

First, I think that something like light rail would be good for Kansas City. Especially with the building of the Sprint Center and the Power and Light District. Not only would provide transportation but allow people to communicate more and not just be in their car and be somewhere.

With that said, this plan is bad and just can not work. The money isn't there and it goes to the wrong locations.

You have to remember that on the ballot that this passed was the minimum wage issue which brought out a lot of people who would use mass transit and also wouldn't be paying very much of the taxes on it.

The light rail would be fine, but really it should focus on downtown. Light rail is successful in cities with high-density populations, even if the cities aren't that big themselves. A downtown light rail would be useful, especially north/south. Branching to the suburbs would be a pork-barrel enterprise, with Chastain likely benefitting somehow. I don't see how anyone else could push this so hard and so often, especially when they don't live here

[guy above me]

access nurtures development. development brings population. population brings cars. population demands more roads for their cars to have better access to the new development... sprawl. High taxes to maintain thousands of miles of roads, meet construction demands for new ones.

Meanwhile, city's water supply intakes rust and gasp as river drops, sewer continues to seep and contaminate said river (and thus water supply), city officials wonder about ballot initiative for light rail (again), KCPL jacks up projected costs for Iatan 2 coal fired plant, tinkers with wind energy in Spearville, refuses to allow their customers to pay exclusively for the wind energy, even at a higher cost.

Public administration plays roulette with our tax money, worries how to sneak out from under a popular initiative.

Citizens get riled up, temporarily, talk loudly, save the world online, do nothing.

Keen city we're developing here.

Sorry. Go Royals.

[Brian]

"access nurtures development. development brings population. population brings cars. population demands more roads for their cars to have better access to the new development... sprawl"

I understand, and agree with you to a point. But look at Kansas City. Our sprawl basically outweighs practical expansion expectations. We're down to 170th+ street in South Johnson County (in 1990, imagine telling ANYONE that and you'd be laughed at.) We're sprawling west by KCK and Olathe. We're sprawling North, through my hometown of Liberty, and all across 152. We're sprawling East, outside of 470 and 50 through Lee's Summit. And we're trying to grow downtown. I promise you, not that many people are demanding Kansas City living. People enjoy the quality of life, and there's a certain population boom getting out into the workplace (myself included), but still it's a bit ridiculous in the Kansas City region.

More roads won't necessarily lead to more access and higher population, especially with the expanded sprawl, and all these places vying for a limited number of homeseekers. If you doubt that sometimes this sprawl really doesn't work out, look at Miami. They built a whole new series of roads and popped up condos everywhere. Now there are rows and rows of unoccupied condos and a porkbarrel road construction industry.

Which leads me back to light rail. This sprawl means that if we ever get a larger light rail, and our population density doesn't increase (this being the KEY KEY KEY to light rail success), how are we not just spending ridiculous amounts of money to reach these more remote areas with rail?

Maybe if Chastain actually tried to work WITH anyone, ever, he could galvanize the support of those groups to pressure the Council to proceed with light rail plans.

His Lone Ranger act leaves him with just the threat to sue. Does he want light rail, or does he want his ego?