Silence Broken ;)
I get the sense from my colleagues that sitting council members do their best to stay under the radar during the election season for their counterpart's seat. I was pretty happy to follow suit and still am...... essentially.....
I just have to say one thing. I know most of us were pretty green and raw when we ran for office, especially the first time. There aren't that many fantastic ideas and there are even fewer clever slogans that will energize the voters. Candidates are mostly people doing the best they can on their own, without the political consultants and pros that make the big shots look good.
And that's all just fine. I don't want to get on anyone's case because I happen tho think that his big idea is kinda small or his clever slogan isn't that impressive. HOWEVER, when someone's catchy motto is so poorly formulated and so short-sighted that it borders on insulting, I gotta punch-up the blog.
No ad hominems, just an attack on this candidate's premise.
Before I start, I'm not out to get Michael KELLY. But think he's been flippant and careless in choosing his words and I'm a little offended by it. Kelly is the candidate with the three-generation history in PV and the Shamrock on his promo material. On the ballot he's “Michael”.
He's also the candidate whose major thrust is "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village". I don't know why he wants to drop this particular name. In the interest of neutrality, I'll not speculate. In my opinion, Kansas Citians invoke J.C. Nichols the way St. Joe invokes the Pony Express (although the pony express existed for only 18 months!) – Hey, it's one of the few claims to fame that they have.
But J.C. Nichols is not some kind of benevolent urban/social/cultural architect. J.C. Nichols was a very astute real estate investor/developer and innovative planner who successfully exploited the coming dominance of the automobile in post war KC. He's also, like, the father of the shopping mall.....
Don’t get me wrong, Prairie Village is a beautiful city and it’s planned elements still work pretty darn well despite a community that wants to be increasingly neighborly, increasingly pedestrian friendly and increasingly socially and economically integrated. And a great deal of that is owed to J.C. Nichols vision.
But let's be honest, it's becoming more and more pedestrian friendly; it has the potential to attract and keep young growing families as well as offering older citizens homes to "age in place"; residents here are working toward a better and better place to live every year, every decade. But that's mostly because of the inherent qualities of the people who live in PV, not solely because of J.C. Nichols "vision". Most Prairie Villagers can get a larger and newer house for the same money in Beige-ville off an exit of I-70 or 35 or 29. They’re in Prairie Village because of what they can be a part of here and what they can create here, not because someone figured it all out for them 50 years ago.
There are several problems with the concept of "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village” but I’ll only speak to the one that I find truly objectionable.
The problem that I have with J.C. Nichols’ "vision" is another of his pioneering works: the restrictive racial covenant. There have been numerous articles in the KC Star, academic journals, the writings of Nichols himself that document the use of racially restrictive covenants, but, to me, none is more in-your-face than the deed restrictions that STILL EXIST, IN WRITING in the deed restrictions of the Prairie Village Homes Association. Sure, they’ve been unconstitutional since the late 40’s but they’re there. You still get them in black and white on page 3,
“Section 2
Ownership of Negroes Prohibited
None of said land may be conveyed to, used, owned, or occupied by negroes [sic] as owners or tenants.”
No, they’re not enforceable, but is that the point? You tell me. To me, that’s NOT the point. They exist and apply to the homes that some of us live in, Today, Right NOW and it’s revolting.
These rules automatically renew every 25 years and if you want them amended, all the paperwork has to be done 5 YEARS in advance of the 25 year anniversary – Nichols built these rules to last. And if he’s the major KC benefactor that people claim he is, it seems to me that he would want to be the driving force in undertaking the tedious and expensive task of completing the paperwork to make these covenants go away.
So I object to the cozy name-dropping that comes with "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village”. It’s ill-considered and dare I say, slightly ignorant from someone who touts a three generation history in Ward III. In the first of those three generations, the ink on those restrictions was barely dry and absolutely enforceable. . . . . nice vision.
I just have to say one thing. I know most of us were pretty green and raw when we ran for office, especially the first time. There aren't that many fantastic ideas and there are even fewer clever slogans that will energize the voters. Candidates are mostly people doing the best they can on their own, without the political consultants and pros that make the big shots look good.
And that's all just fine. I don't want to get on anyone's case because I happen tho think that his big idea is kinda small or his clever slogan isn't that impressive. HOWEVER, when someone's catchy motto is so poorly formulated and so short-sighted that it borders on insulting, I gotta punch-up the blog.
No ad hominems, just an attack on this candidate's premise.
Before I start, I'm not out to get Michael KELLY. But think he's been flippant and careless in choosing his words and I'm a little offended by it. Kelly is the candidate with the three-generation history in PV and the Shamrock on his promo material. On the ballot he's “Michael”.
He's also the candidate whose major thrust is "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village". I don't know why he wants to drop this particular name. In the interest of neutrality, I'll not speculate. In my opinion, Kansas Citians invoke J.C. Nichols the way St. Joe invokes the Pony Express (although the pony express existed for only 18 months!) – Hey, it's one of the few claims to fame that they have.
But J.C. Nichols is not some kind of benevolent urban/social/cultural architect. J.C. Nichols was a very astute real estate investor/developer and innovative planner who successfully exploited the coming dominance of the automobile in post war KC. He's also, like, the father of the shopping mall.....
Don’t get me wrong, Prairie Village is a beautiful city and it’s planned elements still work pretty darn well despite a community that wants to be increasingly neighborly, increasingly pedestrian friendly and increasingly socially and economically integrated. And a great deal of that is owed to J.C. Nichols vision.
But let's be honest, it's becoming more and more pedestrian friendly; it has the potential to attract and keep young growing families as well as offering older citizens homes to "age in place"; residents here are working toward a better and better place to live every year, every decade. But that's mostly because of the inherent qualities of the people who live in PV, not solely because of J.C. Nichols "vision". Most Prairie Villagers can get a larger and newer house for the same money in Beige-ville off an exit of I-70 or 35 or 29. They’re in Prairie Village because of what they can be a part of here and what they can create here, not because someone figured it all out for them 50 years ago.
There are several problems with the concept of "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village” but I’ll only speak to the one that I find truly objectionable.
The problem that I have with J.C. Nichols’ "vision" is another of his pioneering works: the restrictive racial covenant. There have been numerous articles in the KC Star, academic journals, the writings of Nichols himself that document the use of racially restrictive covenants, but, to me, none is more in-your-face than the deed restrictions that STILL EXIST, IN WRITING in the deed restrictions of the Prairie Village Homes Association. Sure, they’ve been unconstitutional since the late 40’s but they’re there. You still get them in black and white on page 3,
“Section 2
Ownership of Negroes Prohibited
None of said land may be conveyed to, used, owned, or occupied by negroes [sic] as owners or tenants.”
No, they’re not enforceable, but is that the point? You tell me. To me, that’s NOT the point. They exist and apply to the homes that some of us live in, Today, Right NOW and it’s revolting.
These rules automatically renew every 25 years and if you want them amended, all the paperwork has to be done 5 YEARS in advance of the 25 year anniversary – Nichols built these rules to last. And if he’s the major KC benefactor that people claim he is, it seems to me that he would want to be the driving force in undertaking the tedious and expensive task of completing the paperwork to make these covenants go away.
So I object to the cozy name-dropping that comes with "J.C. Nichols vision for Prairie Village should be our vision for Prairie Village”. It’s ill-considered and dare I say, slightly ignorant from someone who touts a three generation history in Ward III. In the first of those three generations, the ink on those restrictions was barely dry and absolutely enforceable. . . . . nice vision.
posted by Andrew Wang at 11:03 PM
4 Comments:
Mr Wang,
Based on his admiration for JCNichols city planning do you mean to imply that Michael Kelly is a racist? That is quite a leap. What motivates you to make imply this?
Have you ever been to the Country Club Plaza, Crestwood, Brookside or Mission Hills? Nichols undeniably had a long lasting and elegant impact on Kansas City. Many would argue that Nichols made Kansas City what it is today.
Don't you suppose the more logical conclusion to draw from Mr. Kelly's admiration of Nichols is of that legacy?
If the restrictive covenants that exist throughout cities in the United States is a true issue of concern to you, can we expect to see you take immediate action to strike them from the record in Prairie Village?
If not, perhaps you should let Mr Kelly speak for himself.
In the interest of fairness to the democratic principal behind blogging, please don't delete this. Do as your website states and show 'tact and respect' for all points of view.
There will be no more stupid comment-posting. If you have something to say, say it. Express a half-intelligent thought and it stays. Cryptic, sarcastic babbling gets deleted.
Mr. Wang,
It is not cryptic, sarcastic babbling to suggest that as a current councilman you are unable to effectively deal with the racist slant of section 2. You have admitted on this website that you know it exists and you will do nothing to change it. I merely suggested that the newly elected may be able to help you deal with this racism. Your comments and record is proof of your ineptness in this regard. Again, I wish you good luck, Joe
Joe
Please consider an anonymous hotmail or yahoo e-mail and we can carry this conversation on more efficiently. Or give me a call, I don't purchase caller ID at my house.
To put it more kindly, it is unsupporter rhetoric to suggest that any individual -- council member or not -- can, as you accuse: "effectively deal with the racist slant of section 2." Everything I have read says it is exceedingly difficult. Please tell me what you know that I am unaware of.
I will continue to publish AT THE TOP of the blog any postings that are critical of me if they accurately portray my stance. I have stated plainly here my position on all controversial issues including open ignition ordinance, the contract with BWR for city planning and school speed zones. People are free to disagree and get equal exposure IF they disagree with me based on my views.
I'm not going to allow an INACCURATE characterization of my perspective. I'm NOT asking for you to INTERPRET my statements accurately; I'm asking you to READ them. Everything that I post is simple and plain-spoken.
I NEVER said I would "do nothing to change" section 2. I said VERY PLAINLY that if going door to door with a petition was good enough to erase Section 2, I would. It is inaccurate to interpret this as I “will do nothing to change it”. An individual who is not a lawyer and not even a member of the homes association has extremely limited resources with which to cope with this issue. That is not “ineptness”, that’s just the facts of the case. It would be insulting and mean-spirited to call you “inept” if I ask you to walk on the moon and you tell me you can’t. Unless you can present me with a well-researched method that I, as an individual or as a council member, can employ that does not require thousands of dollars in funding for removing the offending restrictions and it is endorsed by an experienced attorney or by the HACCD, calling me inept is just taking the opportunity to post on the blog as a chance to call names. I have prominently posted enough legitimate criticism of me on this blog to be able to say I’m not going to allow someone to use the blog to present unsupported speculation and nonsense (your entire comment this morning was just such unsupported speculation and an attempt to throw insults.)
You are angry about something and it is preventing you from carefully reading what I am saying.
Prairie Village has ZERO jurisdiction over homes association deed restrictions. NONE. If Mr. Kelly, plans to fix this from the City of Prairie Village as a Council Member I can't wait to see myself proved wrong and I will announce by any means that I have at my disposal to all of my PV contacts, family and friends the debt I owe to Mr. Kelly for accomplishing something that I thought impossible and for doing a great service to the community. I will conference you in on a call to Sara Stites at the Kansas City Star who is the reporter covering our city and tell her: "Mike Kelly has proved me wrong. I thought that the city council of Prairie Village had no jurisdiction to remove the offensive language from the Homes Association deed restrictions and I am glad I was so wrong. Mike has shown me what determination and dedication to a particular cause can accomplish and he has taught me a valuable lesson. That kind of spirit and resourcefulness is an asset to the city and to the council.” I will also make the same statement in a council meeting so the comments will be published in the meeting minutes.
Joe, my initial criticism was of Mr. Kelly for lauding the Nichols Vision because the Nichols Vision has flaws and obviously doesn’t work for today’s Prairie Village. The county is growing and Prairie Village is SHRINKING. I didn’t say that Mr. Kelly wasn't doing enough to erase restrictive covenants. No one without serious money (except the HACCD, which I have already mentioned) is going to make these restrictions go away. I said I wasn't going to attack him and I didn't.
Mr. Kelly had plenty on his web site that speaks directly to his stance on city issues that I have very coherent arguments against and I did nothing to voice those opinions. Either of us could be “right” or “correct” but I still could have attacked Mike on several issues if that was my objective. It was not. Differences of opinion are standard on the council and those debates belong in the council chambers.
I have very strong disagreements with fellow council members and we get along wonderfully. And I have never attacked them. I didn't demand that Mr. Kelly do something to erase the restrictions because Nichols paid lawyers big bucks to make it nearly impossible.
Let me quote from the Kansas City Star three people who anyone ought to consider "expert" and certainly know better than you or I what it would take to erase the covenants.
“Pete Heaven, a lawyer who drafts rules for new neighborhoods in Kansas and Missouri.
‘If you're lucky enough to have that (an amending procedure) in the document, then you merely need to get an amendment signed by at least 51 percent or two-thirds of the landowners.’ But he said it gets far more complicated when the restriction is in the plat because to amend a plat every property owner has to agree.”
“John Sheets, executive director of the Homes Associations of the Country Club District [which is the corporate power over many Nichols Homes Associations, including PVHA], said restrictions written for the J.C. Nichols Co. require that a notice to amend be filed five years in advance of its renewal date — usually every 20 to 25 years — and that all homeowners must agree to the change.
‘There's a lot of expense to get every single signature of every homeowner notarized in a timely fashion and then submit that,” Sheets said. “You'd have to have an attorney working on it for two to three years. It would be extremely cost prohibitive. And if one person holds out, the whole thing is off.’ ”
Sen. John Vratil [Vice President of the KS Senate, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee AND Senior Litigator for one of the largest law firms in KC Lathrop Gage] . “It's a … homes association issue. It's a question of, is it offensive enough that you're willing to pay $50 to $100 per homeowner to get it removed? And I think I know what the answer is.”
Beyond this, I admit, I haven't done any further research, maybe Mr. Kelly has and if he proves these guys wrong, he deserves EVERYONE'S praise, not just mine.
Post a Comment
<< Home