May

15

Shell game breaks promises on bonds

May 15, 2006 |

In 2004 city voters approved $250 million in bonds to help accellerate repairs to streets, catch basins, sidewalks, bridges, and other infrastructure. A Star editorial reveals that the city is already cutting its regular capital improvements budget and using the bonds to make up the difference. In other words, the bonds are replacing regular money instead of adding new money.

Another part of the 2004 bonds was a promise of no tax increase. However, the city’s skyrocketing debt load could very possibly force the City Council to use a clause in the 2004 ballot that allows for a property tax increase if necessary to pay off the bonds.

This news further tarnishes a City Hall reputation for diverting money from promised uses. It’s also interesting that the Star broke the story in an editorial, as we can find no previous coverage in the newspaper.


Comments

6 Comments so far

  1. AeroSquid on May 15, 2006 11:59 am

    fucking weak sauce. this is so typical of Kansas City. Someone should bulldoze city hall, it would be months before anyone noticed it was gone… the perfect crime.

  2. Hajkar on May 15, 2006 2:14 pm

    It seems that Ms. Kaufman isn’t the only one whose panties get twisted when lied to by the city. I’m sure Nate Acardo and DST Reality aren’t happy with this potential change of economic environment. It will mean real money to those “real” developers. Mayhaps JIK won’t have to worry so about the sightlines from the proposed PAC.

  3. Mark on May 16, 2006 11:40 am

    When myself and several others tried to explain that this was the most logical outcome of a Yes vote on the Bond election, I believe BlogKC called us C.A.V.E. Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
    The statements about what would happen if there wasn’t money to pay the bonds–showed that it was just a sneaky way to collect some money “without a tax increase” as the proponents like to say. Actually it was a way to increase property taxes without a direct vote to do so. Told you so!

  4. BlogKC on May 16, 2006 12:05 pm

    Told us so? Anything is possible, the key here is what the city is doing with the possibility. The bonds aren’t the problem, the city’s diversion of money is the problem. And that’s a problem that can be fixed without forgoing the benefits of the bonds.

  5. rovere on June 20, 2006 2:41 pm

    Great job guys…

  6. buckley on June 20, 2006 2:41 pm

    Great job guys… Thank for you work…

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind