Hot & cold air at Sunday's mayoral forum

   Every forum so far in Kansas City's mayoral primary seems to develop its own personality. Sunday afternoon's forum, in front of about 350 people at the now-closed Southwest High School, seemed to have a Halloween flavor.

   Many of the 11 candidates there were donning masks, figuratively speaking.

   Here's a rundown of the more memorable lines, moments and claims:

   Most overused words: "leadership" and "vision." Several candidates talk about them, particularly Albert Riederer, but few are presenting specific solutions to problems that citizens care about. A question about crime, for instance, produced no particular plan from any candidate who answered. Only later did businessman Henry Klein mention that he would push to add 100 patrol officers on the streets.

   Best opening statement: Janice Ellis. She explains that nearly half the big cities in the country have elected mayors without political experience (like her). Then she introduces her specific plan for Kansas City's future and outlines several key points in it, such as creating a policy to handle economic development tax breaks in a more "prudent" way.

   Best pitch for the importance of political experience in running the city: Becky Nace. Referring to all the fiscal challenges the city faces and the fact that the mayoral field includes several political newcomers, she said, "There is no time for on-the-job training."

   Most far-fetched promise: Nace again. She said, "If you elect me mayor, we will have a city that . . . will have basic services that are the envy of the region." In annual citizen surveys, Kansas City residents rate their city services so much lower than residents of most suburban communities, it will take some work for Kansas City just to approach suburban satisfaction levels.

    Most entertaining disagreement: Mark Funkhouser and John Fairfield on the city's use of tax breaks for economic development. Funkhouser, the former city auditor, compared tax-increment financing (known as TIF) to a drug, and said the city had "come to completely rely on drugs." Fairfield, a current City Councilman who spoke next, said, "That's all bunk." He went on to defend the city's record of attracting development and pointed out, "Folks, grass does not generate sales taxes."

    Most outlandish claim on a resume: Stan Glazer, who said, "Stan Glazer's the guy who brought the National Hockey League to Kansas City." A check of The Kansas City Star's archives from the early 1970s showed that Glazer was never mentioned in articles about the ownership group of the short-lived Kansas City Scouts hockey team, or about the civic delegation that went to NHL meetings and applied for a team. Later note: Glazer disputes this characterization, says he has articles showing he was in one potential ownership groups at the time, and he maintains he was a "catalyst" in getting the NHL in KC.

  Laugh line of the night: Glazer again. After noting that in Kansas City's latest citizen satisfaction survey, 76 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with a particular city service, he said, "Stan Glazer could do this good, I promise you that."

   Best question at a mayoral forum so far: The last question at Sunday's forum, which asked, "Why would you be a more effective mayor than the candidate to your right?" It produced some laughs (Katheryn Shields didn't seem to know her right from her left) and no direct barbs at any opponent. Instead, candidates used it as an opportunity to point out how they stood out from the field. Jim Glover was one who rose to the occasion: "I have not just served and voted," he said. "I have also delivered on promises," referring to the midtown shopping center he championed.

Posted by Jeffrey Spivak

Comments

[love the horserace]

Will the scorecard results be posted here?

Fairfield for Dog Catcher!

[DaveKCMO]

is ANYONE doing any polling right now? why on earth does the star still think alvin brooks is the front-runner? are you even talking to voters?

nace also provided an excellent answer on how she would answer critics of the current council. while it was a bit of a cop-out, it was honest.

was it just me, or did stan glazer only get to answer one question?

and finally, it was very apparent that no one was expecting the e-tax to become a big issue. no candidate really has an alternative, other than the land tax that was proposed this week.

[Drew Murphy]

I was at the debate, and hopefully will be at more. First off, I didn't like the format. On some questions, six candiates responded. On others, only three got to answer. I didn't take a tally, but it seemed that Henry Klein and Stan Glazer barely got a bone, while Al Riederer got to participate every time. The moderator, although doing their best, didn't seem that into it and attentive.

Al Riederer spoke so loud he almost didn't need the mike. He came across too loud and almost gruff. To his credit, he reminded the audience that he wanted to be a "leader", and quite frankly, some of the other candidates didn't seem like the had the same desire. Also, he wasn't afraid to quote his age as 61.

Katherine Shields to me continues to dwindle towards the bottom. In her opening remarks, she used the words "terrorist". Give me a break. Of all the candidates, she relied on notes the most. She needs to quit.

Henry Klein quite frankly continues to impress. He does use the "darkhorse" label to his advantage. I could see him maybe stealing some midtown votes.

Jim Glover, who as of right now would get my vote, really stepped up on Sunday. He continued to pound away about the Costco/Home Depot operation, but also talked some about some new shopping centers that are coming in his district. He seemed much more focused than he was during the KKFI debate. Also, he mentioned his experience in transporation planning. After the debate, he was one of the most sought after candidates.

Stan Glazer I thought did well. Some of Stan's claims are kind of a stretch, but he did note that he got 40 percent during the last election, including mine. He is by far the funniest (intentionally) of the hopefuls, and I thought he really finished strong with his last comments.

Although he had alot of supporters, I thought Mark Funkhouser took a few steps back today. He didn't do bad, but just didn't dazzle me. I thought it was great that he and John Fairfield sat next to each other. That is easily the best feud in this race so far.

I thought Fairfield did better than expected. I don't agree with alot of his ideas, and he really seems to ride off the sucess of Mayor Barnes, but he held his own. He probably had the least supporters at the debate.

Janice Ellis continues to sound like a "politician". She does nothing to impress, and should drop out.

Becky Nace tries to sound like the "outsider" but is falling as well.

Al Brooks left halfway through the debate, and honestly I'd like to know why. Does he even want to be mayor? I don't think so.

[DaveKCMO]

ugh... if klein lays claim to the dark horse label one more time i'm going to vomit. what is it exactly that makes him one? he doesn't seem to know and keeps grasping at all the wrong straws trying to explain it to voters.

Fairfield for Dog Catcher!

[Drew Murphy]

Klein is a darkhorse due to nobody knowing who he was when he started, to now being a much more popular candidate than "known" names like Eddy and Shields.

[Real Blogs Give Props]

Wasn't there a 4th in-district and at-large council forum yesterday? Does the Star not realize we have a council-manager form of government and those future councilpersons will have just as many votes as the mayor?

Why is there not a critique of that forum? It was in the same room! It's not like you had to travel to get to it.

Agree with 8:04. Any thoughts on the 4th District Council Forum?

[try2Bobjective]

Davekcmo, thanks for bringing up the point about Brooks. I'm speculating, but I think the Star was heavily criticized a few years ago by the African-American community (and from what I hear a group of ministers) with accusations of racism at the Star. So the ownership and editorial Board are very gun-shy to make any citicism of the prominent African-American mayoral candidate.

That's the only way I can explain the Star's very strange behavior.

The Star gives Brooks preferential treatment, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF FREE PUBLICITY every time they refer to Brooks as the front runner. Quite frankly, Brooks probably wasn't the front runner until the Star, over the past six months, presumptively assumed he was in all of their coverage of the mayor's race!

As someone else pointed out, and I agree with totaly, I am hard pressed to find any African-Americans that will be voting for Brooks - and the more city-knowledgeable they are, the more they DO NOT support Brooks. Because they know, as do most people, that Brooks has not done too much in 8 years on City Council, and has probably foregone and lost alot of important opportunities as well.

And he took $100,000/year for what is essentially a part-time job, advocating for crime reduction. Most people realize Al Brooks hasn't had too much of an impact.

But the Star continues to apply a double standard to candidates - one standard to Al Brooks, and another to the rest of the candidates.

And I, like most people, still feel that Al Brooks has made Kansas City a better place - but he isn't qualified for Mayor, and it's irresponsible to treat him differently and without scrutiny.

Point in fact- Yale's recent article on the mayor's race where he began with the usual light treatment of Brooks, referencing him as the front runner without any scrutiny, and then applying scrutiny to all the other candidates. That's just one of many examples.

What on earth happened in the world overnight?? I woke up and for the first time EVER...agreed with Try2.

After decades of politics in this city and state, and being especially attuned to local actors on the political stage here in KC, I have to say that Try2 is absolutely correct about Brooks. The Star only announces that Alvin is in the lead and in doing so hopes that this carries the water for his lack luster performance.

As much as he is admired in the community, in private conversations with voters, they all have the same thoughts as expressed by Try2.

[Drew Murphy]

try2Bobjective - good points about Brooks. I still want to know why he left barely half way through the debate. He is not a serious candidate anymore.

Yesterday's forum was lack luster in that all of the candidates are reflecting an extreme level of fatigue. The tissues and scratchy voices are symptoms of how stretched they are. It also reflects in their responses to the usual questions.

I agree with another commenter that the format was less than fair in that we did not get equal response time to all candidates. Obviously the questions were geared by how the "weeding out" is going in the audience's mind. That too was very pointed in yesterday's forum. Those in attendence have begun to cull it down.

I agree with the Brooks observations. Yael and a couple of other reporters are very careful not to sully his good works. This should not be the measuring tool for our next mayor.

I also agree that the council choices are major to the business at city hall and mus be carefully selected.

All in all, this forum was a disappointment.

[Mod Dem]

I think Brooks gets pub because of the Charles Wheeler treatment. We tend to treat our elderly old statesmen with respect rather than bashing them. Good ol' Midwestern hospitality. Old men get a free pass in KC politics.

As far as Glover, is the Costco/Midtown Marketplace development supposed to be a reason to vote for him? I find that to be an abomination. Kansas City is supposed to be an urban metropolis, not some wingding suburb with sprawled strip malls like Olathe.

[Real Blogs Give Props]

Drew Murphy,
Did you stay for the council forum? Any thoughts?

The Star is obviously incapable of covering anything so I guess we'll have to rely on commenters or maybe a blogger was there. Those of us unable to attend can only hope.

Glazer's line about the 76% of respondents could apply to the 4 council members who are running. They can probably do that well too.

That is NOT good enough! We are on that merry-go-round right now.

Take a Sunday drive around the downtown area when you don't have all the traffic to distract you from what is NOT happening there.

Yes, construction is occuring and is responsible for much of the mess. HOWEVER, there are numerous buildings that are in deporable condition that have nothing to do with the main construction. It is filthy all over with litter and general debris. When these fine new structures are finished, there will still be everything in between these venues. The streets have huge uncovered holes and then yes, there are plenty of metal plates to dodge.

After your Sunday drive through downtown, take the long expanse across the bridge, along the front of Wheeler Airport and you will suddenly find yourself in the land of the "swells" and can enjoy a latte in Briarcliff. Ridiculous to the sublime. Two different worlds. To use Alvin Brooks own words, it is a tale of two cities, and the first chapter is on TIFs.

If we can't at least keep our downtown clean now with these 4 "seasoned" candidates on board at city hall, what is to say their priorities will be any different in May?

Mod dem, I'm not totally thrilled with the design as well. I think Glover termed out of office during the final design of Costco and Home Depot. Glover has always advocated a more urban design (build to the street, with parking behind, etc.)

If you ask him about the design, I think he would say he was very disappointed, but that what the development has done has made midtown more viable, and proven that major retail can succeed. And that the city will have a lot more leverage with design on the next development.

[Where's Waldo]

RBGP,

I stayed for the council candidates. Here's my opinion.

4th in-district

Ezekiel Amador - Nice guy, decent answers, not much personality. He doesn't seem to have many specific issues.
Mark Forsythe - Very bright. Very knowledgeable. Tends to ramble and couldn't get everything he wanted to say out in the time limit. Obviously loves to be in front of a crowd.
Jan Marcason - Plain, boring, non-profit executive. Says a lot without saying anything.
Mel Solomon - Arrogant. Condescending. Seems to want everyone to be impressed that he's an architect.

From what I heard in the lobby from people not obviously affiliated with any campaign, Forsythe was the favorite. An older couple (who are the ones that actually vote) were commenting about what a smart young man he is. He definitely was the best speaker of the bunch and seems to know a lot about financial issues.

4th at-large

Rita Valenciano - Another non-profit type. Speaks Spanish. Didn't do or say anything noticeable.
Doug Gamble - Bright guy. Smooth talker. Comes off a little too laid back. Like he's trying to sell you something. Knowledgeable about business.
Beth Gottstein - Horrible speaker. Worst answer of the night. Didn't answer the question about how she would vote on the smoking ban because she thought that decision had already been made. Seems to have no idea what's going on. How she got all the endorsements she listed is a mystery to me.
John Tancredi - Another nice guy. Extremely nervous. His voice wavered so much I thought he was going to cry. Talks only about social issues.
Deth Im - The comedian. His attempts at humor wore a little thin with me. I can't see him being an effective councilperson.

The buzz for that group seemed to be between Gamble and Im. Nobody came out the clear winner from what I could see. Both Gamble and Im are good speakers. I'd probably give the nod to Gamble right now because of his business background.

[KC Pol]

I was at the forum yesterday (my second) and think I'm starting to narrow the mayor and city council candidates down (I live in the 4th District).

For Mayor, I'm leaning toward Glover or Ellis. Of all the candidates, they're the only ones who seem to have given much thought to what their goals would be after the election and seem to be working the hardest to actually talk to voters. I want to like Reiderer because I respect many of the people who are supporting him, but so far I've seen nothing to distinguish him. I also think Kline has made an impressive showing, but he should have probably gotten into one of the city council races.

4th In-District. This is the hardest for me. I actually like all four candidates and hope the three who lose will continue to be involved in local government. Forsythe comes across as the smartest, but is the candidate I know the least about. Amador and Solomon have both personally knocked on my door, which makes a huge impact. Marcasun is very nice, but she has to pick up the pace and distinguish herself is she wants to win (however, her connections will probably be enough to get her in the run-off).

4th District At-Large. Also a hard race for me. Gamble, Im and Tancredi have all impressed me early on with good ideas and I believe would bring a fresh voice to the council. Gamble's ownership of hotel property he's seeking to redevelop in Mid-Town makes me question his motives. Valenciano seems like a good candidate, but I don't know much about her. Gottstein is a total non-starter for me. Her biggest strength is that lots of people know her (which in her case is also her biggest weakness).

[Mark Forsythe]

KC Pol,

Thank you for your comments. Please visit my website, Forsythe4KC.com if you'd like to find out more about my candidacy.

As far as knocking on your door, if you will email me your address I will be at your house tonight! Every vote counts and as the grass roots candidate my Blog, yard signs and the ability to go door to door are my most important strategies.

Where's Waldo,

Sorry about the rambling. You're right. My wife just emailed me to tell me you're right! There's a lot I want to say! You're also right about the being in front of crowd observation. Youngest of seven children. I'm used to crowds. :-)

Thanks to everyone who stuck around for the council candidate forum. I know it made for a long day.

Mark Forsythe
Candidate 4th In-District

[brent toellner]

KC Pol -- if you want to know more about Forsythe check out his blog at http://www.forsythe4kc.com/blog.shtml

I spent about 3 hours with his blog when I first started trying to find out about the candidates -- in the blog he pretty much covers every topic imaginable for the world to see his views. I find him to be a very solid candidate with a lot of good ideas about what he'd fix and shares many of the same ideas many people feel about the failings of our current group of council members.

I just see Solomon and Marcasan as more of the same as what we have now...status quo is good enough for me type of people. Actually, I can't figure why anyonoe would vote for Mel at this point, every chance I've met with him he's sounded very condesending and thinks I should vote for him a) because he wants to be on the city council (like everyone else doesn't?), b) because he's an architect and c) because he's raised more $$ than everyone else (that's a plus?)

4th At-Large is going to be tough...I like all four candidates for extremely different reasons...

[GhettoSweetP]

"Gamble's ownership of hotel property he's seeking to redevelop in Mid-Town makes me question his motives. - KC Pol"

I'm not decided yet either but had the same thought about Gamble. But also makes me think he will work hard to revitalize Mid-Town - having a vested interest in something isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've been complaining about KC's loss of conventions for a long time. So when he brought up attracting more conventions at the Hyde Park meeting my eyes lit up! A person that plans events at the Big 12 tournies said working with Dallas was WAY easier than working locally with the less than helpful KC folks (not sure the name of the dept exactly). I find this unacceptable to say the least.

Regarding the 4th district candidates - Amador and Forsythe seem to have the most meaningful neighborhood experience. I like the fact that they are both young, also. I really question why Marcason would want to have all that union support. This is the 4th district, and the idea of a candidate who is heavily supported by the firefighters makes me worry about what kind of promises she has made to that group of bullies! Solomon was egotistical as someone stated earlier.

About the at-large candidates - Gottstein really scares me for a lot of the reasons that Marcason does. She may live in the 4th district now, but she sure as heck didn't grow up here and it appears that every job she's had, has been due to her political connections. I like Tancredi and Valenciano, because they seem like real people. They weren't the best speakers, but they seemed to speak from the heart. They both seem to have had more real life experiences that lead me to believe they will listen and take seriously all constituents' concerns.

[David Farnam]

I was at the debate and stayed for its entirity and I live in the 4th District two blocks from SW HS.

Mayoral Candidates:

I was probably most impressed with Mark Funkhouser, Henry Klein, Janice Ellis, Jim Glover, and Stan Glazer.

Janice Ellis actually has a plan for being elected. I picked up the executive summary and look forward to it. I also know her personally from Partnership for Children and believe she's in the race for the right reasons. She probably has the best plan moving forward as it relates to education and involving the city as opposed to the "it's the school district's problem" way of thinking that is so prevalent. Unfortunately she's not the best public speaker of the group. Janice, practice with the mirror! Please, I genuinely would like you to be doing better and more prepared.

Mr. Funkhouser may also have not been the best speaker but I like the fact that he understands the key issues facing our city. He is the front runner in my opinion based on his knowledge, integrity and lack of ego. He's in it because he cares and that comes accross.

Riederer also has a level of integrity I can admire but seemed too driven to create change by force rather than by consensus or collaboration. He seems like a divisive "my way or the highway" kind of leader. But then I may be too naive to know...that may be what we need.

Henry Klein seemed the most thoughtful and charismatic of the bunch. I liked that he had a plan for putting 100 cops on the streets. He's at the top and should abandon the dark horse comments.

Stan Glazer was funny and charismatic but if I had to decide if he was in the race to make a difference or stroke his ego, I think he's more about ego. But none the less he could probably be a good ambassador for attracting new business to relocate to KC.

Jim Glover seems equal parts leader and ego trip. I like his work on getting Costco and Home Depot to downtown. He would also do a good job at attracting out of town business. Ego aside he's probably not a bad choice because he gets things done and has a vision. But I like humility.

John Fairfield is probably the most open about the direction he'd like to take the city. Development, development, development.

My position is that it takes safe neighborhoods and quality schools to attract business who need a qualified base of potential employees in order to grow. You could say its a sort of chicken vs egg debate of education vs development and Fairfield's approach and clearly his emphasis is on development. I don't think has a clue about education or a care about much of anything else. His one-sidedness won't get my vote.

Al Brooks was probably the biggest disappointment. Al what was more important than fielding questions from concerned citizens? I can't think of a personal issue aside from the death of spouse or parent that would keep me from debating. You obviously rely in name recognition and assume you have this race wrapped up. And maybe you do for the primary but you lost my vote. I expected more, better, something other than an opening statement about the tale of two cities.

Becky Nace, was pretty good but in the company of pretty good competition and I didn't feel she debated well enough or provided enough vision to make the cut.

Kathryn Shields was the least impressive. She stammered through not knowing her right from left and made a very memorable impression. Once again she will be remembered negatively. Please stop or bow out, you're campaign just rolled over and played dead.

Gottstein went the way of Jeanne Patterson at yesterday's forum - that's for sure. Is she dumb, arrogant, or both? Maybe she thinks she's running for office over in Kansas becuase there has been no decision made on smoking bans in KCMO. How did she get so many endorsements when she's such an uninformed candidate? It really does make a voter question the true motives of the endorsing PACs around here!