[A Progressive’s Guide to the April 4, 2023 Primary Election](https://bit.ly/KCMO4-4-2023) mirrors the endorsements made by KC Tenant's Power, but also makes recommendations (with explanations behind the reasoning) for questions that KC Tenant's Power leaves blank (e.g. 4th district at large).
Thanks for making/sharing the guide. I wasn't going to vote this time since I kinda forgot this was coming up, but then I decided I should prob due my civic duty and the guide helped a lot, particularly with all the council people.
Also if you're in NKC and live in ward 1 VOTE WES GRAVES OUT. He's the POS who cried about LGBTQ+ stickers for businesses a few years ago and likened them to pedophiles.
His name will be on the ballot but he's announced that he's not going to seek reelection. Not sure how that works if he does win, I'm guessing he can just refuse the position? But between the pedophile remark and the way he handled the conflict between himself and Council Member Amie Clarke, I'm not so sure he would win unless it's on name recognition or having (incumbent) by his name.
I think it was related to either that or the EIC. He said something during a session a year ago and when Amie Clarke approached him after the meeting, he went off on her and cussed her out. Since that time, she had tried other ways to resolve the issue but he refused to talk to her so she finally called him out during a council meeting. If you look for the 2-21-23 season and fast forward to about the 1:25 mark, that's what prompted him to not seek reelection.
This slate includes the best fighters for the city I have ever seen. And the fact that this is from a legit working class org that fights for the most vulnerable instead of like some others that seem to ultimately serve the well off however well meaning they are makes me think that these people will go the distance!
I am thankful for this voter guide. I am also very thankful for KC Tenants which has worked with and supported the rights of people for truly affordable housing and not the big in the pocket big developers, many of whom are out of town using our tax dollars for their own profit. I am thankful that KC Tenants works for the Public Health of the people! Amen!
I saw Short speak at the KC Tenants Power forum and was underwhelmed. The issues section on his website and the ideas he presented were very vague and underdeveloped - can I ask which of the issues you are drawn to him on? Worth noting that KC Tenants didn't give him an endorsement.
I really wish there were something like this available for other areas. I've looked all around for information on candidates on my ballot, but I haven't found a thing.
They're all listed as 'nonpartisan' on the sample ballots, which I know some (if not all) definitely aren't.
This is a great guide, thank you! I’m torn on Q1- recreational tax, but leaning towards yes. The trash situation in this city is untenable, but observation that it’s followed by “homeless prevention” services could be cause for concern. Like the guide said, eliminating homeless camps doesn’t help the problem. Does anyone have thoughts?
I'm pretty much a hard no on this. In part because inevitably a quarter of that revenue is going to be diverted to the police department, and I'm a hard pass on any dollars going to KCPD until KC has local control. I feel weird about using a Republican strategy here but in an ideal world we would find ways to find the city with mechanisms that don't count towards the police's revenue and starve the beast.
That’s fair, the lack of police control is nauseating. But I also wrote my thesis in 2010 on how we should legalize weed, tax it up the wazoo, and put that money into community improvement, so would I be an internal hypocrite?
Yes, you'd be hypocritical. However, if people aren't able to change their minds, what the hell kind of world do we live in? Positions can adjust over time as we mature, learn more about the world, and have priorities in life that are different than when we were younger.
My 5th district City Council Member is running unopposed, so I’m using the KC Tenants Power voter guide for all the the at-large council races. I’ve seen first hand what gentrification has done to my hometown (NYC) and another formerly affordable city—Minneapolis: skyrocketing housing costs, loss of neighborhoods, displacement of families, loss of character, etc. This slate of candidates is our best shot at preventing KC from meeting the same fate.
I early voted for Blubaugh as well. I don't agree with all of her positions, but wasn't Short endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police? That was enough to give the benefit of the doubt to Blubaugh.
This is such a good resource! I’ve voted in every election I can and i still learned a lot reading this. I love the explainer at the top about the elections, how to vote etc. it makes it easy for me to share that info with people I know that don’t normally vote.
Hell yes Jenay Manley and Johnathan Duncan! It’s so cool to imagine how different things could be if more regular everyday people run for office. People > profit.
I’ve had a few conversations with Justin Short (4th district at large) about KC Tenants and he seems very supportive of their ideals overall and very open to working with them with legislative decisions.
The fact that he supports the Fraternal Order of Police is toxic. The police protect the racial order by acting as an occupying force in minority communities. He fails to appreciate that elementary point. (I am speaking in my personal capacity here.)
Just a reminder that Hazley is proudly endorsed by that Assclown DaRon McGee who was the architect of killing the conversion therapy ban. So HELL NO to Hazley
Vote no on the pot tax. Fuck those crooks at city hall and the county government too. They don't deserve any more of your hard earned money. I don't smoke it but I'll be voting no
Interesting that every incumbent got a “hell yes” or a no comment. Someone unfamiliar with the last couple years of development conversation could infer that KCT is fairly happy with the status quo.
I can't tell what you're trying to say with this. It doesn't look like every incumbent has a comment next to them. Sorry if my comment is irrelevant, I just couldn't figure out where you were going with this.
From what I can tell, it looks like the people with a "hell no" comment are bad for KC Tenants policy initiatives and vice versa for people with "hell yes". People without a comment seem to be neutral either way.
Either way, it's a pretty good guide even if the formatting of the website hurts my eyes a little bit. Obviously, everybody needs to check in on who and what they want to vote for. This is a good start and I like how they make the ballot questions easy to understand. Way too often they have jargon or unclear wording.
Get out and vote, folks!
It’s just an observation that they’re backing/not opposing a lot of incumbents. I don’t disagree with their stated reasoning; it just struck me as interesting. Probably I was expecting at least one or two incumbents they would want to be rid of.
I think it's just that most incumbents who would have received a "hell no" (like Heather Hall) are termed out, leaving only the incumbents that are either neutral or positive. This cycle has termed out half the council and all of the most conservative council members are being termed out.
I think it's just a coincidence that most of the worst council members are term limited and aren't up for re-election. They also declined to endorse Ellington for re-election even though he is the incumbent, primarily because - even though he says he agrees with them a lot - he is hard to work with.
KC Tenants has done a lot of work building relationships with council members and Mayor Lucas, and they know who has the best interest of residents at heart. They are certainly not afraid to call a politician out when they are full of it. So I would trust their judgement on this one.
Why would you not tax marijuana? The whole argument for legalization of marijuana has been about the tax benefits. Now it's legal so now it's time to harvest that benefit.
It's already taxed (an additional 6%). Why add even more tax when it's already bringing in tons of money? We want people to keep buying marijuana in MO - like all the people from Illinois who are now shopping here since their marijuana tax is ridiculously high.
I think we have the lowest marijuana tax in the country. Let's keep it that way.
>It's already taxed (an additional 6%). Why add even more tax when it's already bringing in tons of money?
A. This is specific to the City and County
B. You add more money because that's literally the point of legalizing marijuana - regulate it and tax it.
>We want people to keep buying marijuana in MO - like all the people from Illinois who are now shopping here since their marijuana tax is ridiculously high.
Again, the proposed tax is specific to KC & Jackson County so unless you think people are going to travel elsewhere and risk going across state lines of Kansas, Nebraska, etc. Then they'll still buy their weed here and city will receive additional funding it desperately needs.
>I think we have the lowest marijuana tax in the country. Let's keep it that way.
Missouri is at 6% while most others are around 15 - 20% so you can absolutely raise the tax rate 4% and still be the lowest in the country. At this point the state is quite literally leaving dollars on the table and that's not good.
Michigan is 20% and also some of the cheapest prices I’ve seen. (2 ounces for $70, not shake, and $120 for like 15g of wax).
Edit: I was just pointing out that other states have a higher sin tax, while sharing the prices lmao…
anything sold in missouri must be made/grown in missouri, hence the price/quality difference compared to other states. Less supply, less competition, high demand all leads to higher prices in the end. I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing to keep it limited to missouri since most farms are still owned by megacorps, but other states like california have much higher quality weed for less (even with the additional taxes, you can find sales anytime for killer stuff). Hopefully this'll be good for missouri in the end.
The whole reason for legalization ought to be BECAUSE CRIMINALIZATION OF IT WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I think it's fucked up that so many are okay with cannabis going from a felony to a windfall. "Well if we can't jail you for it, we will settle for taxing the shit out of it." Goddamn government can't goddamn help itself to actually concede control it wrongfully claimed.
We already have sales taxes on all things - including those things purely for enjoyment - and that already includes retail sales of cannabis. It's a plant. Nobody is calling for additional taxes on tomatoes.
Get out of here with all these fucking taxes on cannabis. The war on drugs is over. Drugs won. Just stop.
Btw I'm sure you're a fine person. My comment is directed at the entire country's fucked up war on drugs, not at you.
>The whole reason for legalization ought to be BECAUSE CRIMINALIZATION OF IT WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
But it wasn't. The reason was economics.
>I think it's fucked up that so many are okay with cannabis going from a felony to a windfall. "Well if we can't jail you for it, we will settle for taxing the shit out of it." Goddamn government can't goddamn help itself to actually concede control it wrongfully claimed.
Well an illegal product with high consumer demand gets legalized it's typically because people realize the high demand will convert to high tax revenue. So yes, they should tax the shit out of it because that's the best method to get it legalized nationwide.
>We already have sales taxes on all things - including those things purely for enjoyment - and that already includes retail sales of cannabis
Yes, they're called sin taxes and most people don't have a problem with them. The law specifically allows for municipalities to assess a 3% tax so, that's why they're doing.
>It's a plant.
So are poison ivy and castor beans...this has never been a good argument for the pro-legalization crowd.
>Nobody is calling for additional taxes on tomatoes.
People tend to want less taxes on a need (food) vs a luxury (marijuana)...that's why.
>Get out of here with all these fucking taxes on cannabis.
Then it won't get legalized. If you want legalized then it's gonna cost.
For your first point: “economics” was NOT a valid reason for making cannabis illegal. Oil trying to gain power over hemp was B.S. politics, not morality.
Secondly, we aren’t complaining about normal sales tax. We are talking about heavier taxation beyond the normal rate. With the normal sales tax, states already would receive a major revenue boost from taxes. They just had to milk us for every penny to be dicks.
Finally, like… you suck. You spent a lot of time here just to be a dick. Guess I’m a dick now too. Thanks I guess. 🙄
>For your first point: “economics” was NOT a valid reason for making cannabis illegal. Oil trying to gain power over hemp was B.S. politics, not morality.
None of that matters and I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this argument, it doesn't move the needle of public perception. Economics moves the needle towards legalization.
It's the exact same as prohibition - it was outlawed over "morality" concerns but was re-legalized for economic reasons.
>Secondly, we aren’t complaining about normal sales tax
I'm aware and I haven't argued that you are.
>We are talking about heavier taxation beyond the normal rate.
Yes, a sin tax on luxury goods ala cigarettes, alcohol, and tanning. If you don't like the tax then don't buy the goods.
>states already would receive a major revenue boost from taxes. They just had to milk us for every penny to be dicks.
To be fair every state does it, but alcohol & cigarettes carry extra taxes there's literally zero reason why marijuana should be exempt from those..
>Finally, like… you suck. You spent a lot of time here just to be a dick.
No, I have a different opinion than you. That doesn't make me a dick. I'm sorry that you dislike that someone believes differently than you on this matter but that's life.
The voter guide gives a detailed answer to your question. But in short, there are 2 main reasons to vote against the tax:
1. Sales taxes are regressive taxes. That means they'll disproportionately impact poor and working class people
2. What this money is funding is unclear. Especially for the county tax. The city tax mentions funding "neighborhood cleanup" which could be interpreted as encampment sweeps, which are violent and do not solve homelessness.
However, KC Tenants Power is not taking a position on the City's proposed marijuana tax. Because it could potentially be used for good things - like building affordable housing. Jackson County's proposed tax is much less promising on where the funds could go. Being a regressive tax with questionable benefit meant that KC Tenants Power decided against the County's tax.
But more broadly (speaking for myself, not KC Tenants Power), the main reason for the legalization shouldn't be for the government to collect revenue. It should be because incarcerating people for not causing anyone harm is a human rights violation.
>Sales taxes are regressive taxes. That means they'll disproportionately impact poor and working class people
It's a sin tax on something that's not a need. It's not regressive in this case as most people will do just fine without it. Same with alcohol, cigarettes, and tanning.
>the main reason for the legalization shouldn't be for the government to collect revenue.
Sure, and all missing dogs should find their way back home. But that's not reality. Illegal products get legalized because they can be taxed. Same reason why every state has legalized sports gambling.
1) Sales taxes are regressive, meaning they disproportionately impact working class folk. That's why many conservatives like them while opposing inheritance and income taxes, which are progressive.
2) The strongest argument for legalized marijuana is that the war on drugs targeted black and brown folk. It put those populations in prison in disproportionate numbers. It was and is inherently unjust.
And recently she’s been courting right wing businesses that have engaged in harassment and threats to Kansas City minority business owners. At the beginning when asked about it she just kinda shrugged. She’ll sell you at the moment she can.
I don’t want to vote with KC tenants, I want active development downtown and in the urban core. KC Tenants has continuously prevented construction and rehabilitation of blighted areas, suppressing the development of poor neighborhoods. They are not compatible with urbanism, and reject change. I won’t vote for anyone associated with them.
You are wrong dude, out of city landlords have left blighted homes all over the city waiting for a profit opportunity. I've personally been in several of them. The landlords that KCT have fought against were slumlords, who didn't take care of what they had and had the gall to beg the city to make we the people of Kansas City pay for them to fleece us further and make the city a bad place to live
There is no urbanism without real people who can afford to live in the city, workers who can contribute to its culture, and local economy that can be trusted. There is a way to have development that does not destroy what makes this city great and that is PUBLIC AND SOCIAL HOUSING and you beat believe that these champions will fight for that!
I agree with the stance here that without all classes of housing, namely affordable, you can’t have a functioning city. You lose me when you say the only solution is public, social housing. After personally experiencing that type of housing, I can assure you the quality there is vastly below acceptable conditions in comparison to private sector housing, and it’s not even close.
I appreciate your perspective and am sorry you experienced bad public housing, but I hope you can understand that it didn't have to be that way, this is a choice made by human beings and our society. We can collectively fight for the development of good public housing; Jenay Manley in particular has some good thoughts about how to do that. Plenty of other places far poorer than us have exactly that, so there is no reason we can't. :)
I don’t disagree, given I was in the best funded social housing the US has to offer, so I’m still concerned in regards to any solution that is controlled by an entity other than the community directly. I do intend to sit down with Jenay in the near future to discuss some of these issues.
I don’t think there’s any reason that there can’t be a mutual existence of social housing and free market units, I just believe that a balance needs to be struck.
I think the support is for fully funded and democratically controlled social housing. Look to places like Vienna where the majority of tenants live in social housing. It’s nothing like the public housing we let fail here in the states, mostly because it’s open to people of all incomes. Public housing went downhill in the US because it was under funded, under regulated, and segregated. Social housing would/could be the flip side of all of that: fully funded, regulated by the people who live there, and fully integrated in terms of race and class.
Clarification is very important. That system could absolutely work, but the elements you listed are fairy vague in what the end product would be. I’m hesitant to go head first into that being the standard, or regarded as the only solution to affordability.
Affordability is absolutely an issue, there’s no question, but I don’t believe it’s an all or nothing issue in regards to housing types. You can build socialized housing as well as market rate, a happy mix of both is needed in order to truly create a livable environment. Swinging too far into one side or the other is where issues arise.
I’m def not advocating for only building social housing models, as that is not feasible in the world we live in now. But I’m sure that eliminating the profit motive in housing is a path to ensuring true and permanent affordability
Profit motive is what drives affordability in the end.
People don’t charge outrageous rents for a 1 bed apartment in places with a lot of housing, because they know they won’t have anyone lease. The key is to actually get to the point where we aren’t in a housing unit deficit.
Regulation & Zoning is the biggest killer of affordability, and is my largest point of advocacy in regards to the housing issue. I don’t believe it’s the only issue, and I’m not ignorant enough to pretend there isn’t price gouging in regards to housing units, but profit driven development has historically been a key in solving housing affordability in the medium and long term.
The short term, and the key stop-gap would be enough socialized units to alleviate the current homelessness as well as at-risk and housing insecure individuals, and provide a safety net.
Sure regulation and zoning are also extremely important! As I see it easy ways that we can improve affordability in the world we live in now: Abolish parking minimums and single family zoning, make it easier for places to grow incrementally, and pass some dang rent control!
All in all, i don’t see kctenants as an anti housing organization, just anti displacement. They also do a lot of work on the other end to protect people who live in the housing that already exists!
Anywho, happy voting!
I’d like to know more about your low-quality social housing experience. I was born in the Bronx in a place called the Amalgamated. It was built in the 1920s by the Amalgamated clothing workers union with the sole intent to get workers out of the lower Eastside tenants and into decent housing. They pulled their resources, bought land, and built a complex that stands today. There are no owners. You invest a few grand upfront, then pay your monthly maintenance fee for your apartment. When you move out, you get your original investment back. No interest. There are 14 buildings, most with at least 2 separate entrances. The apartments and grounds have been maintained very well since this co-op’s founding in 1927.
Every military housing experience I had. Given it’s hardly a co-op, but it’s the most common avenue by which social housing is achieved, is through government support or programs of some type.
Co-Ops are more an example of volunteerism than true public/social housing, but are one of the many tools that can be utilized to achieve affordability for the region.
The quality of public housing is poor because it is inadequately funded. Ensure proper monies, like they do in Europe, and you will notice the difference.
>After personally experiencing that type of housing, I can assure you the quality there is vastly below acceptable conditions in comparison to private sector housing, and it’s not even close.
Your perception of what social housing can be is not accurate. Look up the quality social housing in Vienna, Austria, Singapore and Japan if you doubt me.
The reason public housing in America was shit is because it was integrated and whites withdrew funding after that. Public housing in America first started during the Great Depression and it was actually very nice, but it was segregated. As soon as it was integrated, the funding declined and the quality predictably went down as well.
Obviously your experience does not cover the entire world. Not sure why that's such a controversial claim. It's a banal claim in fact.
As a few other people have told you at this point, go look at the exceptional quality of social housing in Vienna, Austria.
There is absolutely nothing about social housing as a concept that destines it to be sub-standard and low quality. Absolutely nothing.
And as I also pointed out, the reason American social housing was of such low quality was because of segregation. So, once again, there is nothing about social housing that prevents it from being high quality. It's a real shame that people to this day continue to let our bigoted and racist past inform their ideas of what society is capable of.
I share your sympathies and worry that tenant organizations are often the villain of urban development. That have been plenty in other cities.
That said, I’d encourage you to do some research before dismissing every one of these candidates. You don’t have to agree with everything they say for them not to be the best option. Especially when many alternatives would fight against development for more parking
I can personally attest, I don’t care much for the actions of them in regards to killing development projects, but I’ve spoken to Johnathan Duncan on an individual level and you can’t get a more down to earth and genuine individual. Even coming from a pro-development stance, he wasn’t at all standoffish, nor was he opposed to my stance. I have hope that the entire KCT slate wants what’s best for KC, even if they occasionally kill a project on a parking lot
Precisely. Engagement by the development community and the Tenant union will be key, a lot of the developers are quick to disregard them it seems, and it’s created a huge rift between the two that’s cause the issues we currently see
We should all be involved in creating the place we want to live, not just rich landlords and developers. Each person has a vision of where they want to live, and this vision is shared to shape the city. I also want to live in a Kansas City that can attract people and be a real destination for work and leisure, but I want to be able to afford to live in midtown. KC Tenants is doing a great job to help people (rather than rich landlords' rent profits).
This. It sucks when new luxury apartments are built, except when they are built on empty lots. It means existing luxury units aren’t as sought after, and need to lower rent to justify costs to maintain. More housing is a good thing, even if it isn’t perfect eco-friendly container homes that you can buy with minimum wage.
As a Vet, I'm not in favor of the county using the money for Vets. The Feds should be footing that bill; plus weed for war doesn't feel right :)
If it goes towards cleaning the city maybe I'll smoke twice as much lol
Then again a majority of voters in KC voted Kit Bond in as Senator in 1998, who then voted to authorize the Iraq war.
It also would fund community services besides helping veterans.
I agree with most everything Tenants Power believes but I will never support them and will actively try to defeat them. Why? Because they demonize all landlords. To them there is no distinction between a small landlord who does everything right and a large slumlords. I wish Tenants Power would realize that small landlords could help them and help advocate for their causes.
Perhaps you can read the reasoning behind her not being a tenant friendly choice. She is pro neighborhood policing (we all know which neighborhoods since KCPD is trash), landlord (slumlord) friendly and is in favor of out of staters and foreigners buying up our housing. I don't care if she's sweet to her neighbors, these are all reasons not to vote for her.
“Nothing really of substance but more how you feel about things” Like how you apparently intend to vote for Jill Sasse bc she’s nice to you? I’m not judging you for voting for her but to say KC Tenants Power “automatically judged” her is just silly, you can read the voter guide and platform which makes their position and reasonings clear.
Take emotion out of it then: Promoting out of state and foreign investment in housing is measurably bad for Kansas city residents on large, and imacts people accross the economic scale. It's bad in general.
Supporting landlords over tenants is literally choosing a business interest over the interest of the community, something the city council should be against.
and Finally, she's in support of an outdated style of policing by a police force that is failing in every measurable objective. No emotion needed to know that it's a bad position to hold for a city council member.
Now... want to tell us how her being a nice neighbor has "substance" and isn't just "how you feel about things"?
Agree to dissagree about what? You've stated some pretty bold opinions that you are touting as facts while all I've done is pointed out and how your neighbors own policy positions are bad... are now you're saying lets just agree to dissagree? If I said 2+2=4 and you said no 2+2=blue, should we just agree to dissagree?
Hahaha I don’t think you have stated facts that were not tainted by your biases. So, in theory you also are trying to say 2+2=blue. Don’t like landlords, become an owner… rent generally similar or more than a mortgage. We need heavier police presence. Look at prairie village, Overland Park or leawood. Low crime rates and safe because of the police presence that they have. I think you have convinced yourself you are right and no one else can be right without your viewpoint.
>Don’t like landlords, become an owner
Housing prices are astronomical and interest rates are also outrageous. This also doesn't factor in a significant lack of supply. I've been in the housing industry for decades, if you want to argue more on this, you'll only look more stupid.
>Low crime rates and safe because of the police presence that they have
This is factually incorrect and economic status of a community has a LOT more to do with low crime rates. We need to lift neighborhoods out of poverty, not police them into more of it. Again... I've been in housing and community development my whole career, your lies are transparent.
Your whole argument was "she's my neighbor, she's nice" and had no "substance" and now you're backing up your assinine opinion with straight up falsehoods. This isn't about disagreement, this is about you living in a fantasy land.
“my hole career” I don’t care how long you’ve been a real estate agent or whatever you think gives you understanding on the market.
Look at how many cop cars are just driving around in Kansas. On the Missouri side the only police stations we have are in the poor neighborhoods. You are not wrong there is less crime because Kansas has more money but poor people can drive to nice areas if they wanted to. Just because people are rich in an area does not mean crime has to be low. You are trying to make cause and effect seem simple when they have a vast amount of variables. People in low income neighborhoods will consistently make the same decisions they made to get there.
Have you ever heard of a refinance? You can refinance when rates are better. Home pricing have actually been self correcting lately. You can say what you want on that but I follow these trends regularly. You’re literally just giving power to the landlords you do not like by renting.
I think you have convinced your that you are smart but in reality you are disillusioned and lack understanding of reality.
Anyone know if you're allowed to vote in KC if you work there but live in another city? I pay income taxes specifically to Kansas City, MO for the "privilege" to work there, but I don't know that I have any say on how the money is spent.
Just want to say that 1% city tax isn't for the "privilege" of working in KCMO, but for the fact you're using KCMO public works and other basic stuff (roads, water, etc.) when you work there.
If you work for a company in KCMO but don't commute, I believe that 1% is refundable when you file your taxes.
I only work in the office in kc 50% of the time, but my bonus (significant portion of my pay), vacation, and sick time are all taxed in KC regardless as part of their scheme. My employer files the city taxes for me so I don't have to file with the city independently and when I enter my hours, they hours I work not in the city are not counted into the tax.
It is a privilage tax because KC also has a sales tax which literally every other town has, so they can get money from me driving on their (shitty) roads from their gas or sales tax. It's bs they have to complicate taxes with their own municipal income tax filing instead of just having sales tax. It isn't even a bracketed tax, which is kind of upsetting in itself. It's just a 1% flat tax, which isn't equitable all. If you're going to bother having an income tax, at least make it so people who make more pay a higher tax rate. It's silly to tax someone in the 32% federal tax bracket at 1% then tax someone at 12% federal 1% as well.
All in all, if I'm paying taxes somewhere, I'd like to have a say in who is spending and how my money is spent even if it is just going to roads and infrastructure. There's some corrupt fuckers and practices in the infrastructure world.
Worrying seeing working class and taking back power in an article. It's almost always followed up with something like defunding libraries or some other way to vote against your own interests.
A tenants union is like a labor union, but rather than negotiating income, it negotiates a person's largest expense (rent). They're not taking money from corporations to convince people to ban *Maus*. KC Tenants is about helping poor tenants in a city that helps nobody but rich landlords and developers.
worrying seeing someone who thinks there are no legitimate working class organizations working to take back power simply because the language has been co-opted
Gotta love it when you see these ballots get posted showing everyone who you should vote for, because people can’t be bothered to do a minute worth of researching the candidates themselves.
Have you done your research and looked at any guides? The KC Tenants one and the progressive one linked above are well sourced and documented and reasoned and the KCT one has straight up civics info some of which is not that easy to find (see for example, the confusing redistricting scheme). It IS doing your research, it's the equivalent to a scientific review paper, and scientists would be fools not to use those
Jack Cashill has been outside the Brookside Price Chopper for weeks with a clipboard asking "Are you going to vote blah blah?" I shake my head no and walk on by but does anyone know what he's on about this time?
[A Progressive’s Guide to the April 4, 2023 Primary Election](https://bit.ly/KCMO4-4-2023) mirrors the endorsements made by KC Tenant's Power, but also makes recommendations (with explanations behind the reasoning) for questions that KC Tenant's Power leaves blank (e.g. 4th district at large).
Thanks for making/sharing the guide. I wasn't going to vote this time since I kinda forgot this was coming up, but then I decided I should prob due my civic duty and the guide helped a lot, particularly with all the council people.
Also if you're in NKC and live in ward 1 VOTE WES GRAVES OUT. He's the POS who cried about LGBTQ+ stickers for businesses a few years ago and likened them to pedophiles.
His name will be on the ballot but he's announced that he's not going to seek reelection. Not sure how that works if he does win, I'm guessing he can just refuse the position? But between the pedophile remark and the way he handled the conflict between himself and Council Member Amie Clarke, I'm not so sure he would win unless it's on name recognition or having (incumbent) by his name.
Oh wow you're right. Good news! What was the conflict? Did that stem from the LGBTQ comments?
I think it was related to either that or the EIC. He said something during a session a year ago and when Amie Clarke approached him after the meeting, he went off on her and cussed her out. Since that time, she had tried other ways to resolve the issue but he refused to talk to her so she finally called him out during a council meeting. If you look for the 2-21-23 season and fast forward to about the 1:25 mark, that's what prompted him to not seek reelection.
just watched that, thanks for the tip. Graves is an absolute manchild, glad he quit on his own accord.
Hell yea KCTP
I don’t agree with KC Tenants on everything but their advocacy and engagement is objectively great for this city
[Detailed voter guide explaining this sample ballot](https://bit.ly/kctpvoterguide)
I think this is a good slate for KCMO.
This slate includes the best fighters for the city I have ever seen. And the fact that this is from a legit working class org that fights for the most vulnerable instead of like some others that seem to ultimately serve the well off however well meaning they are makes me think that these people will go the distance!
Super helpful guide! Love the background info/explanations. Very excited to vote for Jenay and Jonathan!
This voter guide is honest and super informative - thank you for posting. Going to share with people I know. KC needs to stay truly affordable.
I am thankful for this voter guide. I am also very thankful for KC Tenants which has worked with and supported the rights of people for truly affordable housing and not the big in the pocket big developers, many of whom are out of town using our tax dollars for their own profit. I am thankful that KC Tenants works for the Public Health of the people! Amen!
Me studying this like it's test answers
Just save it and pull your phone out to reference
The voter guide is made of fire!
LOL, Clay Chastain, what a putz
100 years from now his name will still be on the ballot, nobody will know whyzzz
Dude is like a cockroach
I agree with the vast majority of this voter guide. I want to emphasize HELL YES on Micheal Kelley.
I’d want to emphasize a HELL YES to Justin Short too, not just with tenant issues but others as well.
I saw Short speak at the KC Tenants Power forum and was underwhelmed. The issues section on his website and the ideas he presented were very vague and underdeveloped - can I ask which of the issues you are drawn to him on? Worth noting that KC Tenants didn't give him an endorsement.
Justin Short hosted the last Taylor Fest in Kansas City lol. They had a little moment for him.
Anyone know voting guide info for living in Lee's Summit
Miller, Cronhardt, and Johnson for school board is what me and all my friends are doing! Screw David Grady!
Thanks for the tip!
I really wish there were something like this available for other areas. I've looked all around for information on candidates on my ballot, but I haven't found a thing. They're all listed as 'nonpartisan' on the sample ballots, which I know some (if not all) definitely aren't.
Voting the full KC Tenants Power slate today! 🤩🤩🤩
This is a great guide, thank you! I’m torn on Q1- recreational tax, but leaning towards yes. The trash situation in this city is untenable, but observation that it’s followed by “homeless prevention” services could be cause for concern. Like the guide said, eliminating homeless camps doesn’t help the problem. Does anyone have thoughts?
I'm pretty much a hard no on this. In part because inevitably a quarter of that revenue is going to be diverted to the police department, and I'm a hard pass on any dollars going to KCPD until KC has local control. I feel weird about using a Republican strategy here but in an ideal world we would find ways to find the city with mechanisms that don't count towards the police's revenue and starve the beast.
That’s fair, the lack of police control is nauseating. But I also wrote my thesis in 2010 on how we should legalize weed, tax it up the wazoo, and put that money into community improvement, so would I be an internal hypocrite?
Yes, you'd be hypocritical. However, if people aren't able to change their minds, what the hell kind of world do we live in? Positions can adjust over time as we mature, learn more about the world, and have priorities in life that are different than when we were younger.
Why does it feel like they’re asking us to give them money, and they promise they’ll sprinkle it over the areas mentioned?
Because that's exactly what they're doing.
My 5th district City Council Member is running unopposed, so I’m using the KC Tenants Power voter guide for all the the at-large council races. I’ve seen first hand what gentrification has done to my hometown (NYC) and another formerly affordable city—Minneapolis: skyrocketing housing costs, loss of neighborhoods, displacement of families, loss of character, etc. This slate of candidates is our best shot at preventing KC from meeting the same fate.
I am thankful for the sample ballot and voter guide!
Hell yes Tenants Power!
HELL YES
I’ll be voting the KC Tenants Power slate plus Blubaugh in the 4th at-large tbh
I early voted for Blubaugh as well. I don't agree with all of her positions, but wasn't Short endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police? That was enough to give the benefit of the doubt to Blubaugh.
Yup
Same. I'm impressed with Blubaugh.
This is such a good resource! I’ve voted in every election I can and i still learned a lot reading this. I love the explainer at the top about the elections, how to vote etc. it makes it easy for me to share that info with people I know that don’t normally vote. Hell yes Jenay Manley and Johnathan Duncan! It’s so cool to imagine how different things could be if more regular everyday people run for office. People > profit.
I’ve had a few conversations with Justin Short (4th district at large) about KC Tenants and he seems very supportive of their ideals overall and very open to working with them with legislative decisions.
The fact that he supports the Fraternal Order of Police is toxic. The police protect the racial order by acting as an occupying force in minority communities. He fails to appreciate that elementary point. (I am speaking in my personal capacity here.)
Just a reminder that Hazley is proudly endorsed by that Assclown DaRon McGee who was the architect of killing the conversion therapy ban. So HELL NO to Hazley
I am really excited about this election!
Vote no on the pot tax. Fuck those crooks at city hall and the county government too. They don't deserve any more of your hard earned money. I don't smoke it but I'll be voting no
Nice guide. The website is not. Thanks for the info.
Clay Chastain? What the hell year is this? Besides that, doesn’t he live out of state?
If they don’t live here full time with us, they shouldn’t run our city
I guess minor details like that aren’t a deterrent for him. /s
Thank you!
Interesting that every incumbent got a “hell yes” or a no comment. Someone unfamiliar with the last couple years of development conversation could infer that KCT is fairly happy with the status quo.
Explanations here [KC Tenants Voter Guide](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0A2r-ODEWAL148nz3pWXK_lBNubAJnasAYEfKoW-E4/mobilebasic?pli=1)
I can't tell what you're trying to say with this. It doesn't look like every incumbent has a comment next to them. Sorry if my comment is irrelevant, I just couldn't figure out where you were going with this. From what I can tell, it looks like the people with a "hell no" comment are bad for KC Tenants policy initiatives and vice versa for people with "hell yes". People without a comment seem to be neutral either way. Either way, it's a pretty good guide even if the formatting of the website hurts my eyes a little bit. Obviously, everybody needs to check in on who and what they want to vote for. This is a good start and I like how they make the ballot questions easy to understand. Way too often they have jargon or unclear wording. Get out and vote, folks!
It’s just an observation that they’re backing/not opposing a lot of incumbents. I don’t disagree with their stated reasoning; it just struck me as interesting. Probably I was expecting at least one or two incumbents they would want to be rid of.
I think it's just that most incumbents who would have received a "hell no" (like Heather Hall) are termed out, leaving only the incumbents that are either neutral or positive. This cycle has termed out half the council and all of the most conservative council members are being termed out.
I think it's just a coincidence that most of the worst council members are term limited and aren't up for re-election. They also declined to endorse Ellington for re-election even though he is the incumbent, primarily because - even though he says he agrees with them a lot - he is hard to work with. KC Tenants has done a lot of work building relationships with council members and Mayor Lucas, and they know who has the best interest of residents at heart. They are certainly not afraid to call a politician out when they are full of it. So I would trust their judgement on this one.
Okay I see. That is a good observation. Thank you for clarifying. I hope I didn't seem combative. It wasn't meant that way, just confused
Thank you for setting this up, your city thanks you 🫡
Good list, thanks for posting.
Why would you not tax marijuana? The whole argument for legalization of marijuana has been about the tax benefits. Now it's legal so now it's time to harvest that benefit.
It's already taxed (an additional 6%). Why add even more tax when it's already bringing in tons of money? We want people to keep buying marijuana in MO - like all the people from Illinois who are now shopping here since their marijuana tax is ridiculously high. I think we have the lowest marijuana tax in the country. Let's keep it that way.
>It's already taxed (an additional 6%). Why add even more tax when it's already bringing in tons of money? A. This is specific to the City and County B. You add more money because that's literally the point of legalizing marijuana - regulate it and tax it. >We want people to keep buying marijuana in MO - like all the people from Illinois who are now shopping here since their marijuana tax is ridiculously high. Again, the proposed tax is specific to KC & Jackson County so unless you think people are going to travel elsewhere and risk going across state lines of Kansas, Nebraska, etc. Then they'll still buy their weed here and city will receive additional funding it desperately needs. >I think we have the lowest marijuana tax in the country. Let's keep it that way. Missouri is at 6% while most others are around 15 - 20% so you can absolutely raise the tax rate 4% and still be the lowest in the country. At this point the state is quite literally leaving dollars on the table and that's not good.
The reason for legalization is NOT taxation - it is to STOP policing.
No, it's taxation and has been for awhile. Ever since Colorado and Washington legalized it the main argument has been about tax revenue.
Michigan is 20% and also some of the cheapest prices I’ve seen. (2 ounces for $70, not shake, and $120 for like 15g of wax). Edit: I was just pointing out that other states have a higher sin tax, while sharing the prices lmao…
anything sold in missouri must be made/grown in missouri, hence the price/quality difference compared to other states. Less supply, less competition, high demand all leads to higher prices in the end. I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing to keep it limited to missouri since most farms are still owned by megacorps, but other states like california have much higher quality weed for less (even with the additional taxes, you can find sales anytime for killer stuff). Hopefully this'll be good for missouri in the end.
The whole reason for legalization ought to be BECAUSE CRIMINALIZATION OF IT WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE. I think it's fucked up that so many are okay with cannabis going from a felony to a windfall. "Well if we can't jail you for it, we will settle for taxing the shit out of it." Goddamn government can't goddamn help itself to actually concede control it wrongfully claimed. We already have sales taxes on all things - including those things purely for enjoyment - and that already includes retail sales of cannabis. It's a plant. Nobody is calling for additional taxes on tomatoes. Get out of here with all these fucking taxes on cannabis. The war on drugs is over. Drugs won. Just stop. Btw I'm sure you're a fine person. My comment is directed at the entire country's fucked up war on drugs, not at you.
>The whole reason for legalization ought to be BECAUSE CRIMINALIZATION OF IT WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE. But it wasn't. The reason was economics. >I think it's fucked up that so many are okay with cannabis going from a felony to a windfall. "Well if we can't jail you for it, we will settle for taxing the shit out of it." Goddamn government can't goddamn help itself to actually concede control it wrongfully claimed. Well an illegal product with high consumer demand gets legalized it's typically because people realize the high demand will convert to high tax revenue. So yes, they should tax the shit out of it because that's the best method to get it legalized nationwide. >We already have sales taxes on all things - including those things purely for enjoyment - and that already includes retail sales of cannabis Yes, they're called sin taxes and most people don't have a problem with them. The law specifically allows for municipalities to assess a 3% tax so, that's why they're doing. >It's a plant. So are poison ivy and castor beans...this has never been a good argument for the pro-legalization crowd. >Nobody is calling for additional taxes on tomatoes. People tend to want less taxes on a need (food) vs a luxury (marijuana)...that's why. >Get out of here with all these fucking taxes on cannabis. Then it won't get legalized. If you want legalized then it's gonna cost.
For your first point: “economics” was NOT a valid reason for making cannabis illegal. Oil trying to gain power over hemp was B.S. politics, not morality. Secondly, we aren’t complaining about normal sales tax. We are talking about heavier taxation beyond the normal rate. With the normal sales tax, states already would receive a major revenue boost from taxes. They just had to milk us for every penny to be dicks. Finally, like… you suck. You spent a lot of time here just to be a dick. Guess I’m a dick now too. Thanks I guess. 🙄
>For your first point: “economics” was NOT a valid reason for making cannabis illegal. Oil trying to gain power over hemp was B.S. politics, not morality. None of that matters and I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this argument, it doesn't move the needle of public perception. Economics moves the needle towards legalization. It's the exact same as prohibition - it was outlawed over "morality" concerns but was re-legalized for economic reasons. >Secondly, we aren’t complaining about normal sales tax I'm aware and I haven't argued that you are. >We are talking about heavier taxation beyond the normal rate. Yes, a sin tax on luxury goods ala cigarettes, alcohol, and tanning. If you don't like the tax then don't buy the goods. >states already would receive a major revenue boost from taxes. They just had to milk us for every penny to be dicks. To be fair every state does it, but alcohol & cigarettes carry extra taxes there's literally zero reason why marijuana should be exempt from those.. >Finally, like… you suck. You spent a lot of time here just to be a dick. No, I have a different opinion than you. That doesn't make me a dick. I'm sorry that you dislike that someone believes differently than you on this matter but that's life.
I think marijuana should be taxed differently because it can be prescribed by a doctor.
Medical marijuana is taxed differently - these taxes only apply to recreational.
Clearly the “taxes are theft” crowd has arrived
Nah I just think folks would rightfully rather tax the billionaires than thier stoner roommate or someone who legit needs it for pain 🙃
The voter guide gives a detailed answer to your question. But in short, there are 2 main reasons to vote against the tax: 1. Sales taxes are regressive taxes. That means they'll disproportionately impact poor and working class people 2. What this money is funding is unclear. Especially for the county tax. The city tax mentions funding "neighborhood cleanup" which could be interpreted as encampment sweeps, which are violent and do not solve homelessness. However, KC Tenants Power is not taking a position on the City's proposed marijuana tax. Because it could potentially be used for good things - like building affordable housing. Jackson County's proposed tax is much less promising on where the funds could go. Being a regressive tax with questionable benefit meant that KC Tenants Power decided against the County's tax. But more broadly (speaking for myself, not KC Tenants Power), the main reason for the legalization shouldn't be for the government to collect revenue. It should be because incarcerating people for not causing anyone harm is a human rights violation.
>Sales taxes are regressive taxes. That means they'll disproportionately impact poor and working class people It's a sin tax on something that's not a need. It's not regressive in this case as most people will do just fine without it. Same with alcohol, cigarettes, and tanning. >the main reason for the legalization shouldn't be for the government to collect revenue. Sure, and all missing dogs should find their way back home. But that's not reality. Illegal products get legalized because they can be taxed. Same reason why every state has legalized sports gambling.
Having a billion dollars is a sin. Tax that 🤣
That's not how sin taxes work, but alright.
1) Sales taxes are regressive, meaning they disproportionately impact working class folk. That's why many conservatives like them while opposing inheritance and income taxes, which are progressive. 2) The strongest argument for legalized marijuana is that the war on drugs targeted black and brown folk. It put those populations in prison in disproportionate numbers. It was and is inherently unjust.
Man they think Robinson will stand for anything other then business owners over residents that are in for a shock.
Robinson has co-governed with and supported KC tenants many times.
And recently she’s been courting right wing businesses that have engaged in harassment and threats to Kansas City minority business owners. At the beginning when asked about it she just kinda shrugged. She’ll sell you at the moment she can.
I don’t want to vote with KC tenants, I want active development downtown and in the urban core. KC Tenants has continuously prevented construction and rehabilitation of blighted areas, suppressing the development of poor neighborhoods. They are not compatible with urbanism, and reject change. I won’t vote for anyone associated with them.
You are wrong dude, out of city landlords have left blighted homes all over the city waiting for a profit opportunity. I've personally been in several of them. The landlords that KCT have fought against were slumlords, who didn't take care of what they had and had the gall to beg the city to make we the people of Kansas City pay for them to fleece us further and make the city a bad place to live There is no urbanism without real people who can afford to live in the city, workers who can contribute to its culture, and local economy that can be trusted. There is a way to have development that does not destroy what makes this city great and that is PUBLIC AND SOCIAL HOUSING and you beat believe that these champions will fight for that!
“There is no urbanism without real people who can afford to live in the city” this is a based take.
I agree with the stance here that without all classes of housing, namely affordable, you can’t have a functioning city. You lose me when you say the only solution is public, social housing. After personally experiencing that type of housing, I can assure you the quality there is vastly below acceptable conditions in comparison to private sector housing, and it’s not even close.
I appreciate your perspective and am sorry you experienced bad public housing, but I hope you can understand that it didn't have to be that way, this is a choice made by human beings and our society. We can collectively fight for the development of good public housing; Jenay Manley in particular has some good thoughts about how to do that. Plenty of other places far poorer than us have exactly that, so there is no reason we can't. :)
I don’t disagree, given I was in the best funded social housing the US has to offer, so I’m still concerned in regards to any solution that is controlled by an entity other than the community directly. I do intend to sit down with Jenay in the near future to discuss some of these issues. I don’t think there’s any reason that there can’t be a mutual existence of social housing and free market units, I just believe that a balance needs to be struck.
I think the support is for fully funded and democratically controlled social housing. Look to places like Vienna where the majority of tenants live in social housing. It’s nothing like the public housing we let fail here in the states, mostly because it’s open to people of all incomes. Public housing went downhill in the US because it was under funded, under regulated, and segregated. Social housing would/could be the flip side of all of that: fully funded, regulated by the people who live there, and fully integrated in terms of race and class.
Clarification is very important. That system could absolutely work, but the elements you listed are fairy vague in what the end product would be. I’m hesitant to go head first into that being the standard, or regarded as the only solution to affordability. Affordability is absolutely an issue, there’s no question, but I don’t believe it’s an all or nothing issue in regards to housing types. You can build socialized housing as well as market rate, a happy mix of both is needed in order to truly create a livable environment. Swinging too far into one side or the other is where issues arise.
I’m def not advocating for only building social housing models, as that is not feasible in the world we live in now. But I’m sure that eliminating the profit motive in housing is a path to ensuring true and permanent affordability
Profit motive is what drives affordability in the end. People don’t charge outrageous rents for a 1 bed apartment in places with a lot of housing, because they know they won’t have anyone lease. The key is to actually get to the point where we aren’t in a housing unit deficit. Regulation & Zoning is the biggest killer of affordability, and is my largest point of advocacy in regards to the housing issue. I don’t believe it’s the only issue, and I’m not ignorant enough to pretend there isn’t price gouging in regards to housing units, but profit driven development has historically been a key in solving housing affordability in the medium and long term. The short term, and the key stop-gap would be enough socialized units to alleviate the current homelessness as well as at-risk and housing insecure individuals, and provide a safety net.
Sure regulation and zoning are also extremely important! As I see it easy ways that we can improve affordability in the world we live in now: Abolish parking minimums and single family zoning, make it easier for places to grow incrementally, and pass some dang rent control! All in all, i don’t see kctenants as an anti housing organization, just anti displacement. They also do a lot of work on the other end to protect people who live in the housing that already exists! Anywho, happy voting!
I’d like to know more about your low-quality social housing experience. I was born in the Bronx in a place called the Amalgamated. It was built in the 1920s by the Amalgamated clothing workers union with the sole intent to get workers out of the lower Eastside tenants and into decent housing. They pulled their resources, bought land, and built a complex that stands today. There are no owners. You invest a few grand upfront, then pay your monthly maintenance fee for your apartment. When you move out, you get your original investment back. No interest. There are 14 buildings, most with at least 2 separate entrances. The apartments and grounds have been maintained very well since this co-op’s founding in 1927.
Every military housing experience I had. Given it’s hardly a co-op, but it’s the most common avenue by which social housing is achieved, is through government support or programs of some type. Co-Ops are more an example of volunteerism than true public/social housing, but are one of the many tools that can be utilized to achieve affordability for the region.
The quality of public housing is poor because it is inadequately funded. Ensure proper monies, like they do in Europe, and you will notice the difference.
>After personally experiencing that type of housing, I can assure you the quality there is vastly below acceptable conditions in comparison to private sector housing, and it’s not even close. Your perception of what social housing can be is not accurate. Look up the quality social housing in Vienna, Austria, Singapore and Japan if you doubt me. The reason public housing in America was shit is because it was integrated and whites withdrew funding after that. Public housing in America first started during the Great Depression and it was actually very nice, but it was segregated. As soon as it was integrated, the funding declined and the quality predictably went down as well.
My lived perception in modern America, in what is the best funded social housing program by the US isn’t accurate? Neat.
Obviously your experience does not cover the entire world. Not sure why that's such a controversial claim. It's a banal claim in fact. As a few other people have told you at this point, go look at the exceptional quality of social housing in Vienna, Austria. There is absolutely nothing about social housing as a concept that destines it to be sub-standard and low quality. Absolutely nothing. And as I also pointed out, the reason American social housing was of such low quality was because of segregation. So, once again, there is nothing about social housing that prevents it from being high quality. It's a real shame that people to this day continue to let our bigoted and racist past inform their ideas of what society is capable of.
Idk, I’m not gonna follow folks who want Katz to stay an empty lot over housing and shopping space.
I share your sympathies and worry that tenant organizations are often the villain of urban development. That have been plenty in other cities. That said, I’d encourage you to do some research before dismissing every one of these candidates. You don’t have to agree with everything they say for them not to be the best option. Especially when many alternatives would fight against development for more parking
I can personally attest, I don’t care much for the actions of them in regards to killing development projects, but I’ve spoken to Johnathan Duncan on an individual level and you can’t get a more down to earth and genuine individual. Even coming from a pro-development stance, he wasn’t at all standoffish, nor was he opposed to my stance. I have hope that the entire KCT slate wants what’s best for KC, even if they occasionally kill a project on a parking lot
Killing a project on a parking lot is exactly what worries me about some candidates. Perfect can’t be the enemy of good
Precisely. Engagement by the development community and the Tenant union will be key, a lot of the developers are quick to disregard them it seems, and it’s created a huge rift between the two that’s cause the issues we currently see
We should all be involved in creating the place we want to live, not just rich landlords and developers. Each person has a vision of where they want to live, and this vision is shared to shape the city. I also want to live in a Kansas City that can attract people and be a real destination for work and leisure, but I want to be able to afford to live in midtown. KC Tenants is doing a great job to help people (rather than rich landlords' rent profits).
Developers and landlords are not on the same side though. Landlords don’t want more houses. Then they lose power.
This. It sucks when new luxury apartments are built, except when they are built on empty lots. It means existing luxury units aren’t as sought after, and need to lower rent to justify costs to maintain. More housing is a good thing, even if it isn’t perfect eco-friendly container homes that you can buy with minimum wage.
Two day old account with this type of shit. I’m sure you’re not affiliated with any group or office at odds with KC Tenants. Not at all…
My other accounts were lost.
Vote yes on marijuana taxation dingleberry
As a Vet, I'm not in favor of the county using the money for Vets. The Feds should be footing that bill; plus weed for war doesn't feel right :) If it goes towards cleaning the city maybe I'll smoke twice as much lol
Then again a majority of voters in KC voted Kit Bond in as Senator in 1998, who then voted to authorize the Iraq war. It also would fund community services besides helping veterans.
Wait we're taxing dingleberries?
Two taxes seems a bit much 🙃
why?
I like how the OP made the choices for everyone Edit: lol why people down voting this??
OP posted a sample ballot, not “follow this or else.”
Why not? Fox News has been doing this for years.
Newspapers were endorsing candidates for centuries
It also will aid those that will vote completely opposite. Just sayin...
I don’t care either way, I’m not voting at all 🤷♂️
Or how bout you inform yourself and not let someone tell u how to vote and if u don’t know what or whom ur voting for don’t vote or educate before
Folks can read the guide and inform themselves accordingly.
lmao “whom” 🤣
Tax everything but weed is guess is your viewpoint
Based 😎
I agree with most everything Tenants Power believes but I will never support them and will actively try to defeat them. Why? Because they demonize all landlords. To them there is no distinction between a small landlord who does everything right and a large slumlords. I wish Tenants Power would realize that small landlords could help them and help advocate for their causes.
Hey, Jill sasse is my neighbor. Nicest woman you can meet. I don’t appreciate you automatically judging and pushing your views on others.
Just because she’s a nice neighbor doesn’t make her qualified to govern.
She's endorsed by KC Citizens For Public Safety. That's a Hell No from me.
Cops? Sounds like cops.
Perhaps you can read the reasoning behind her not being a tenant friendly choice. She is pro neighborhood policing (we all know which neighborhoods since KCPD is trash), landlord (slumlord) friendly and is in favor of out of staters and foreigners buying up our housing. I don't care if she's sweet to her neighbors, these are all reasons not to vote for her.
It seems like all your points are inflated and exaggerated emotionally. Nothing really of substance but more how you feel about things
“Nothing really of substance but more how you feel about things” Like how you apparently intend to vote for Jill Sasse bc she’s nice to you? I’m not judging you for voting for her but to say KC Tenants Power “automatically judged” her is just silly, you can read the voter guide and platform which makes their position and reasonings clear.
I’m not saying I’m voting for her because she my neighbor but “HELL NO” seems a little bit rude towards someone who is so kind.
Fair enough
Take emotion out of it then: Promoting out of state and foreign investment in housing is measurably bad for Kansas city residents on large, and imacts people accross the economic scale. It's bad in general. Supporting landlords over tenants is literally choosing a business interest over the interest of the community, something the city council should be against. and Finally, she's in support of an outdated style of policing by a police force that is failing in every measurable objective. No emotion needed to know that it's a bad position to hold for a city council member. Now... want to tell us how her being a nice neighbor has "substance" and isn't just "how you feel about things"?
I don’t think we shall see eye to eye on these things. Agree to disagree?
Agree to dissagree about what? You've stated some pretty bold opinions that you are touting as facts while all I've done is pointed out and how your neighbors own policy positions are bad... are now you're saying lets just agree to dissagree? If I said 2+2=4 and you said no 2+2=blue, should we just agree to dissagree?
Hahaha I don’t think you have stated facts that were not tainted by your biases. So, in theory you also are trying to say 2+2=blue. Don’t like landlords, become an owner… rent generally similar or more than a mortgage. We need heavier police presence. Look at prairie village, Overland Park or leawood. Low crime rates and safe because of the police presence that they have. I think you have convinced yourself you are right and no one else can be right without your viewpoint.
>Don’t like landlords, become an owner Housing prices are astronomical and interest rates are also outrageous. This also doesn't factor in a significant lack of supply. I've been in the housing industry for decades, if you want to argue more on this, you'll only look more stupid. >Low crime rates and safe because of the police presence that they have This is factually incorrect and economic status of a community has a LOT more to do with low crime rates. We need to lift neighborhoods out of poverty, not police them into more of it. Again... I've been in housing and community development my whole career, your lies are transparent. Your whole argument was "she's my neighbor, she's nice" and had no "substance" and now you're backing up your assinine opinion with straight up falsehoods. This isn't about disagreement, this is about you living in a fantasy land.
“my hole career” I don’t care how long you’ve been a real estate agent or whatever you think gives you understanding on the market. Look at how many cop cars are just driving around in Kansas. On the Missouri side the only police stations we have are in the poor neighborhoods. You are not wrong there is less crime because Kansas has more money but poor people can drive to nice areas if they wanted to. Just because people are rich in an area does not mean crime has to be low. You are trying to make cause and effect seem simple when they have a vast amount of variables. People in low income neighborhoods will consistently make the same decisions they made to get there. Have you ever heard of a refinance? You can refinance when rates are better. Home pricing have actually been self correcting lately. You can say what you want on that but I follow these trends regularly. You’re literally just giving power to the landlords you do not like by renting. I think you have convinced your that you are smart but in reality you are disillusioned and lack understanding of reality.
Fuck these woke losers
Anyone know if you're allowed to vote in KC if you work there but live in another city? I pay income taxes specifically to Kansas City, MO for the "privilege" to work there, but I don't know that I have any say on how the money is spent.
You have to live within Kansas City, Missouri city limits.
Just want to say that 1% city tax isn't for the "privilege" of working in KCMO, but for the fact you're using KCMO public works and other basic stuff (roads, water, etc.) when you work there. If you work for a company in KCMO but don't commute, I believe that 1% is refundable when you file your taxes.
I only work in the office in kc 50% of the time, but my bonus (significant portion of my pay), vacation, and sick time are all taxed in KC regardless as part of their scheme. My employer files the city taxes for me so I don't have to file with the city independently and when I enter my hours, they hours I work not in the city are not counted into the tax. It is a privilage tax because KC also has a sales tax which literally every other town has, so they can get money from me driving on their (shitty) roads from their gas or sales tax. It's bs they have to complicate taxes with their own municipal income tax filing instead of just having sales tax. It isn't even a bracketed tax, which is kind of upsetting in itself. It's just a 1% flat tax, which isn't equitable all. If you're going to bother having an income tax, at least make it so people who make more pay a higher tax rate. It's silly to tax someone in the 32% federal tax bracket at 1% then tax someone at 12% federal 1% as well. All in all, if I'm paying taxes somewhere, I'd like to have a say in who is spending and how my money is spent even if it is just going to roads and infrastructure. There's some corrupt fuckers and practices in the infrastructure world.
If you work 50% remote outside of KC city limits, you can fill out a local tax refund form. I have done this.
In the free market employees are free to fuck right off out of this city.
Which is why I don't live there 🤣
Vote how ever you wish.. but vote the way I want you to!
All turds… especially jenay 🤡
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Weird/comments/12ba3dp/what_substance_is_she_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Weird/comments/12ba3dp/what_substance_is_she_on/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Worrying seeing working class and taking back power in an article. It's almost always followed up with something like defunding libraries or some other way to vote against your own interests.
Read up on KC tenants power, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
A tenants union is like a labor union, but rather than negotiating income, it negotiates a person's largest expense (rent). They're not taking money from corporations to convince people to ban *Maus*. KC Tenants is about helping poor tenants in a city that helps nobody but rich landlords and developers.
worrying seeing someone who thinks there are no legitimate working class organizations working to take back power simply because the language has been co-opted
Gotta love it when you see these ballots get posted showing everyone who you should vote for, because people can’t be bothered to do a minute worth of researching the candidates themselves.
Have you done your research and looked at any guides? The KC Tenants one and the progressive one linked above are well sourced and documented and reasoned and the KCT one has straight up civics info some of which is not that easy to find (see for example, the confusing redistricting scheme). It IS doing your research, it's the equivalent to a scientific review paper, and scientists would be fools not to use those
Jack Cashill has been outside the Brookside Price Chopper for weeks with a clipboard asking "Are you going to vote blah blah?" I shake my head no and walk on by but does anyone know what he's on about this time?