Toellner Tells it

Even random shootings are somewhat predictable when bad public policy is at play

On Sunday morning, at around 1:20 am, 38 year old Lynn Glover was shot and killed while apparently waiting for a bus at a bus stop at 34th and Troost.  She was apparently killed by a stray bullet that was shot by a 16 year old who was shooting at someone else.

Ms. Glover's death is tragic.  And yet not unforseeable.

Just last week, KCMO published their Homicide Report for Q1 2009.

See the reddest dot on the map?  Yeah, that's where this shooting took place. I wrote about this back in January when I noted that back in 2008, this area had a new project-based Section 8 Housing building. These project based Section 8 housing units have proven around the country to increase crime in those areas. Back in 2006, Kay Barnes' staff signed off on a renewal of Section 8 housing in this area for another 25 years -- even though the contract violates current HUD standards.

Project based Section 8 is little more than verticle segregation that is creating modern day ghettos.

The crime from last year has continued into this year. Back in March, a man in one of the Section 8 buildings on that block was shot and killed. Now, Ms. Glover.

These Section 8 apartments have brought with them a wealth of problems. And Ms. Glover is just another victim of those problems. Two weeks ago my neighbors were held up at gunpoint a block from here as they went for a walk. It's bad enough when people are victims of violent crime in this city because poverty and bad schools have created problems in the city. These are tough problems to fix (although we seem to be making little progress on them). But when someone becomes a victim of crime because of careless city policy -- it is completely inexcusible. And there is some more serious talke about even more out-of-town developers wanting to come in and create more Section 8 housing in the area.

We must. Stop it. Now.

These projects are creating big red dots all over our crime maps.  While Ms. Glover's death was random in its choice of victim, the crime was anything but random. In fact, it was highly forseeable...every night as police cars sit in front of the buildings.

There are better ways. Better solutions. We shouldn't need more victims to prove it. It is time for our city leaders to really dig in to come up with better solutions to low-income housing than the policies of the early 1970s. We've learned a lot about success and failure of these programs since then and it's time to roll up our sleeves and come up with workable solutions instead of repeating the failures of the past and present. The neighborhoods, the people in the housing, and random people waiting for buses deserve better.

Steps forward for animals in Kansas City

The Star has a good follow-up article today on the new privatized animal shelter in KCMO - Half Way Home Pet Adoptions.

Back in February, the city council, under the leadership of Councilwoman Cindy Circo, passed through an ordinance that took control of the city's animal shelter away from the city, and into the private hands of Dr. Wayne Steckelberg. The moved saved the city roughly $175,000 a year (contracting out the shelter was cheaper than running it themselves), but has the move had benefits other than financially?

Sure seems like it.

Immediately after taking over the shelter from the city, the folks at Half Way Home began making major improvements to the shelter -- including a major house-cleaning, and then repurposing areas of the shelter for animals. Where before, cats were kept in a crowded hallway with poor ventilation, now, the 75 cats that live in the shelter are free to roam in a large caged area in the basement that comes complete with old furniture for the cats to climb on. Executive offices have been converted into exam rooms for the animals. The area formerly used as a men's locker room is now a haven for the smallest of the puppies and kittens that enter the shelter.

The shelter has also gotten more aggressive about adoptions. While under the management of the city, the shelter was adopting out 75-100 animals a month, and killing roughly 550.  Under the new privatized management, the shelter is now adopting out nearly 300 animals per month -- dramatically reducing the number of animals that are killed due to lack of space - mostly through programs the city-run shelter should have been doing in the first place. And the citizens wanted these better results.

In last year's KCMO Citizen Satisfaction Survey, Animal Control had only a 33% approval rating -- ranking it 11th out of 12 performance criteria under "Public Safety Services" (found on page 23). Pets are an important part of life for many Kansas Citians. Over 60% of the city's population owns at least one pet . And with Kansas City being the hub of the Animal Health Corridor, how we treat animals in this city is important, not only for the satisfaction of the citizens, but also for attracting animal health industries for new jobs in the metro.

This won't completely solve animal control's issues, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Moving forward, I hope the city council can continue to make seemingly small (and cost effective) changes to each area of living in Kansas City -- to continue to improve the areas of the city that citizens are least satisfied with. This is one example of a simple solution that has been a win for everyone in the metro.

And if you're one of the majority of people who are lovers of the pets in the community - take the opportunity to go check out the shelter for yourself. Maybe recommend to a friend or neighbor that is looking for a pet that they check them out and adopt from them. Maybe you can help volunteer a day or two during the week to help out at the shelter, or give them a financial donation. One of the reasons they agreed to run the shelter at a cost below what the city was able to run the shelter for themselves is because they knew that if they ran the shelter the right way and began saving the lives of the pets, they would be able to get ample volunteer and financial donations to make up for the shortfall. Let's prove the right.

Click here for more on Half Way Home Pet Adoptions.

A Modest Proposal Regarding Citidel Plaza

I haven't had much time for Kansas City politics lately (thus, the few blog postings), but I have been following with some casual interest the Citidel Plaza project in KCMO. (And atip of the hat here to TKC, who has actually used his blogging time wisely by doing a good job of covering this strory -- it's a shame he doesn't put his writing skills to this good of use all the time.)

The proposed project is for a shopping district at 63rd and Prospect.  For those not initiated with 63rd and Prospect, the neighborhood has has long been in a neglected part of the city. The 64132 zip code has a poverty rate of 29% (more than double the state average. 13.7% of the population has an income 50% below the poverty level (also more than double the state average).  The zip code has lost nearly 20% of its population since 1990.

Everyone on the council knows the Citidel Plaza project is a loser financially for the city. There is no way a shopping center in that location is going to pay out in the TIF money they need to build it. And given the current economic situation of the city, taking on more TIF losses doesn't seem like the most responsible thing to do.

But politically it's a loser too. No one disputes that something needs to be done to help this area....which is, at this point, overgrown with weeds and the blight is becoming a haven for crime. Denying redevelopment TIF money to a blighted and forgotten part of town is not good either.

But it doesn't take much driving by the area to realize that the Citidel Plaza area may be the least of the area's problems.

Drive two blocks west and you get to your first abandoned office building.

 If you drive another 2 blocks, you get to another shopping center that sits about 1/3 full of businesses.

If you go another 2 blocks, there is a shopping mall/center that is pretty rough looking, and appears to have several open sites:

And two blocks later, you get to the now-empty building that used to house the Cleveland Chiropractic College:

Given all of this vacancy along 63rd Street, I find it hard to believe that building more buildings is actually in the best interest of the area.  Maybe the answer should be, that instead of building another shopping center, maybe we should provide an incentive for people to fix up and fill the empty building space that blights the area. Maybe once we can get these buildings remodeled, and filled, maybe then, the new shopping center might make sense. But building more buildings for shopping, while others sit empty just blocks away, doesn't make sense: financially or logically.

Helping these buildings get improved and inhabited would likely require less subsidy than the Citidel Plaza project.  And it would also be helping benefit the neighborhood that badly needs it (which will help the city council politically by not turning their back on the area -- not to mention, it would be the right thing to do). Besides, even if they build the Citidel project, they're likely going to have to subsidize this blight anyway (especially when they can't compete with the new development that has tax incentives). 

Maybe it's a horrible idea.  If it is, tell me why. But it seems like better solution for the neighborhood, and a better financial situation for the city.