Midwest Voices

Yael T. Abouhalkah

The Kansas City Star

The supporters of Kansas City’s ballot questions this Tuesday have hitched their wagon to a simple strategy.

They want voters to say “yes” to both Question 1 and Question 2.

But that’s not the best way to spend precious tax dollars and set the right priorities for Kansas City.

So voters who want to avoid a $23 million a year revenue increase for City Hall should vote “no” on Question 1.

As much as that recommendation upsets Mayor Sly James and other backers of Question 1, its defeat wouldn’t necessarily be a repudiation of the mayor’s leadership. I would see it as a way of telling the mayor and City Council that, despite their best intentions over the last year or so, they haven’t done enough to justify giving them tens of millions in extra revenue.

However, I’m more comfortable with recommending a “yes” vote on Question 2.

That one allows the city to borrow $500 million to begin making federally mandated sewer upgrades to prevent sewage from spilling into local waterways.

Approval of the bonds would enable the city to slow the rise of projected sewer bills. In other words, they will keep soaring, but they could go higher faster if the bonds are rejected and the city has to raise money immediately to begin making the sewer repairs.

So again, no matter how easy it might be for taxpayers to vote “yes” on both questions, it’s not necessarily in their best interests.

“No’ on Question 1 and “Yes” on Question 2 strikes a good balance.

Comments

No comments have been posted. Perhaps you'd like to be the first?

Sign in with Facebook to comment.