PDA

View Full Version : Elections Who to vote for in Kansas City Mayor race?


mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 09:46 AM
I have heard a few on the candidates for mayor on KMBZ, but frankly, the ones I have heard sound all the same. Anyone got any opinions on who would be a good Mayor? Not planning on voting for the incumbent. I am voting this afternoon after work, so I have all day to decide. Thanks!

patteeu
02-22-2011, 11:38 AM
I have heard a few on the candidates for mayor on KMBZ, but frankly, the ones I have heard sound all the same. Anyone got any opinions on who would be a good Mayor? Not planning on voting for the incumbent. I am voting this afternoon after work, so I have all day to decide. Thanks!

As maligned as he has been, I think Funkhouser has been the best mayor KC has had in a long time. I know he's taken a fairly unpopular stand on the sports stadiums, but he's at least concerned about basic infrastructure. I remember late in Mayor Cleaver's term when he decided to spend a bunch of money on fountains and flowers along Troost while letting an ever-increasing sewer problem go unaddressed. Later that year, he was pleading with the people of KCMO to vote for additional taxes to address a sewer crisis. :shake:

blaise
02-22-2011, 11:41 AM
If I lived in KC I think I would vote for Funk just to make people at the Star, and city council members mad.

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 11:48 AM
Funk isn't the problem. The city council is the problem.

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 11:56 AM
Funk isn't the problem. The city council is the problem.

The city council has always seemed to be...unproductive at best. A little surprised by the Funk support. Just moved back to KC a couple of years ago, so this is my first mayoral vote in awhile, and my view of Funk was that he appeared to be corrupt. The paying his wife as a consultant situation just seemed corrupt to me, that was the main reason I was thinking of voting for someone else.

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 11:59 AM
The city council has always seemed to be...unproductive at best. A little surprised by the Funk support. Just moved back to KC a couple of years ago, so this is my first mayoral vote in awhile, and my view of Funk was that he appeared to be corrupt. The paying his wife as a consultant situation just seemed corrupt to me, that was the main reason I was thinking of voting for someone else.

I hate defending Democrats, but I believe his wife was unpaid. His biggest downfall is his honesty. I've never heard him be accused of corruption.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 12:03 PM
The city council has always seemed to be...unproductive at best. A little surprised by the Funk support. Just moved back to KC a couple of years ago, so this is my first mayoral vote in awhile, and my view of Funk was that he appeared to be corrupt. The paying his wife as a consultant situation just seemed corrupt to me, that was the main reason I was thinking of voting for someone else.

I'm not an expert on the situation, but from my pov, the thing with his wife was a little different than your perception. IIRC, he initially had his wife down at city hall as an unpaid consultant because he likes having her around as a sounding board and an advisor he can trust. Complaints ensued and I think he appointed her to an actual position* so he could justify her presence, but of course that didn't quiet his critics who were really just looking for anything they could to undermine him.

I really don't think it has anything to do with corruption.


______________
* After reading Saul's comment, maybe he just talked about appointing her to a paid position as a way to keep her at city hall.

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 12:04 PM
I hate defending Democrats, but I believe his wife was unpaid. His biggest downfall is his honesty. I've never heard him be accused of corruption.

Interesting to know. Thanks for the info, still considering who to vote for. I have a few hours to make up my mind. :thumb:

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 12:08 PM
Interesting to know. Thanks for the info, still considering who to vote for. I have a few hours to make up my mind. :thumb:

I have no dog in this fight, but I would vote for Funk just to send a message to the city council. If you run him out, it will only serve to further embolden the truly corrupt CC.

blaise
02-22-2011, 12:15 PM
I have no dog in this fight, but I would vote for Funk just to send a message to the city council. If you run him out, it will only serve to further embolden the truly corrupt CC.

That's how I feel. Not that I'm an expert on KC politics, but the city council strikes me as a sort of little self-serving clique.

Royal Fanatic
02-22-2011, 01:33 PM
I have no dog in this fight since I don't live in Kansas City. However, I do work in Kansas City, and I'm interested in what is going on here.

If I lived in Kansas City, I absolutely would have voted for Funkhouser four years ago. I liked the idea of a mayor who was not a career politician yet had a strong background in city government. His experience as an auditor made me think he'd be the ideal person to make sure the city spent its money properly and conducted its affairs in an efficient and business-like manner.

He didn't have a lot of charisma, but he struck me as a no-nonsense guy who would be an extremely competent and effective mayor.

Funkhouser turned out to be the exact opposite of what I expected. He is a joke and an embarassment, and there is no way in hell I would vote for him now. For the better part of two years he wasted an incredible amount of the city's time, attention, and money because he insisted that he couldn't function without his wife by his side at all times. That wouldn't be such a problem if his wife hadn't turned out to be such a bull in a china closet. She was a major disruption who wound up wasting a lot of people's time and pissing a lot of people off, and there was no reason for her to be there in the first place. The city wound up paying $550,000 to settle one lawsuit against her and $110,000 to settle a related lawsuit against the city. Both were lawsuits filed by former aides to the mayor: the first accused Funkhouser's wife of harassment and discrimination, and the second accused Funkhouser of firing an aide in retaliation for the aide's expressing support for the plaintiff in the first lawsuit.

Then the City Council decided enough was enough, and it passed an ordinance that effectively banned Funkhouser's wife from City Hall. So what did he do? Did he give in and decide to just shut up and do his job? Hell no. He retaliated by holding all of this staff meetings in his house and forcing the city council to conduct city business in a private residence so that his freaking wife could be there with him.

If Funkhouser can't stop suckling at his wife's teat long enough to run the city, I see no reason to re-elect him.

Don't forget, sports fans, that Funkhouser is also the guy who is hell-bent on having the city renege on its agreement to spend $2 million each year for the Sports Complex. Never mind that it could cause the county to default on its leases with the Chiefs and the Royals. Never mind that this would make it possible for one or both of these teams to move (Los Angeles Chiefs?). Never mind that the Chiefs and Royals bring in far more than $2 million each year to the local economies. And never mind that Funkhouser pissed away nearly that much money in his fights with the City Council and the settlements of the lawsuits filed against his wife. All Funkhouser knows is that $2 million is an easy target he can go after.

Funkhouser is a joke. I'm rooting for Michael Burke in this election. Burke has been endorsed by three former mayors. That's good enough for me.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 01:39 PM
I have no dog in this fight since I don't live in Kansas City. However, I do work in Kansas City, and I'm interested in what is going on here.

If I lived in Kansas City, I absolutely would have voted for Funkhouser four years ago. I liked the idea of a mayor who was not a career politician yet had a strong background in city government. His experience as an auditor made me think he'd be the ideal person to make sure the city spent its money properly and conducted its affairs in an efficient and business-like manner.

He didn't have a lot of charisma, but he struck me as a no-nonsense guy who would be an extremely competent and effective mayor.

Funkhouser turned out to be the exact opposite of what I expected. He is a joke and an embarassment, and there is no way in hell I would vote for him now. For the better part of two years he wasted an incredible amount of the city's time, attention, and money because he insisted that he couldn't function without his wife by his side at all times. That wouldn't be such a problem if his wife hadn't turned out to be such a bull in a china closet. She was a major disruption who wound up wasting a lot of people's time and pissing a lot of people off, and there was no reason for her to be there in the first place. The city wound up paying $550,000 to settle one lawsuit against her and $110,000 to settle a related lawsuit against the city. Both were lawsuits filed by former aides to the mayor: the first accused Funkhouser's wife of harassment and discrimination, and the second accused Funkhouser of firing an aide in retaliation for the aide's expressing support for the plaintiff in the first lawsuit.

Then the City Council decided enough was enough, and it passed an ordinance that effectively banned Funkhouser's wife from City Hall. So what did he do? Did he give in and decide to just shut up and do his job? Hell no. He retaliated by holding all of this staff meetings in his house and forcing the city council to conduct city business in a private residence so that his freaking wife could be there with him.

If Funkhouser can't stop suckling at his wife's teat long enough to run the city, I see no reason to re-elect him.

Don't forget, sports fans, that Funkhouser is also the guy who is hell-bent on having the city renege on its agreement to spend $2 million each year for the Sports Complex. Never mind that it could cause the county to default on its leases with the Chiefs and the Royals. Never mind that this would make it possible for one or both of these teams to move (Los Angeles Chiefs?). Never mind that the Chiefs and Royals bring in far more than $2 million each year to the local economies. And never mind that Funkhouser pissed away nearly that much money in his fights with the City Council and the settlements of the lawsuits filed against his wife. All Funkhouser knows is that $2 million is an easy target he can go after.

Funkhouser is a joke. I'm rooting for Michael Burke in this election. Burke has been endorsed by three former mayors. That's good enough for me.

I don't see why his desire to have a trusted aide at his side is such a big issue, even if she happened to be his wife. If the rest of the people at city hall didn't like her, they always had the option to seek alternative employment. Whatever disruption there was, was at least as much the fault of those who didn't like his wife being there as it was of the Funkhousers. And the lawsuits were idiotic. The city should have fought them instead of settling.

The truth is that Funkhouser ruffled feathers of the city's establishment and they fought back in any way they could. IMO, the city's establishment has long been corrupt and has proven that they aren't good for the city. Ruffling their feathers is a feather in one's cap, IMO, to mix my metaphors.

The sports complex issue is a more legitimate beef for those who think a city ought to subsidize it's pro sports teams to make sure they don't leave.

Fat Elvis
02-22-2011, 01:44 PM
We want the Funk...Give us the Funk.....

Royal Fanatic
02-22-2011, 02:00 PM
I don't see why his desire to have a trusted aide at his side is such a big issue, even if she happened to be his wife. If the rest of the people at city hall didn't like her, they always had the option to seek alternative employment. Whatever disruption there was, was at least as much the fault of those who didn't like his wife being there as it was of the Funkhousers. And the lawsuits were idiotic. The city should have fought them instead of settling.

The truth is that Funkhouser ruffled feathers of the city's establishment and they fought back in any way they could. IMO, the city's establishment has long been corrupt and has proven that they aren't good for the city. Ruffling their feathers is a feather in one's cap, IMO, to mix my metaphors.

The sports complex issue is a more legitimate beef for those who think a city ought to subsidize it's pro sports teams to make sure they don't leave.
Like I said, I was a Funkhouser supporter before he actually became mayor. But you and I obviously view the issue of Funkhouser's wife differently. I'm not going to defend the City Council, but I didn't really see this whole thing as the fault of the City Council.

Whether or not a city ought to subsidize its sports team isn't really the issue in this situation. The city made a commitment. Reneging on the commitment has potential negative consequences that far exceed the potential $2 million annual savings. $2 million is a drop in the bucket for a city whose annual budget is in excess of $1.2 billion, so it's kind of hard to understand why Funkhouser would focus on this particular subsidy.

I think he just hates sports. :)

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 02:02 PM
I have noticed that all of candidates support the retention of the KC Earnings tax, despite the likelihood that it will be phased out if the voters get their way. Also, none of the candidates have mentioned cutting spending, or any other means to make up for the lost revenue.

Royal Fanatic
02-22-2011, 02:11 PM
I have noticed that all of candidates support the retention of the KC Earnings tax, despite the likelihood that it will be phased out if the voters get their way. Also, none of the candidates have mentioned cutting spending, or any other means to make up for the lost revenue.
Any Kansas City voter who doesn't support retention of the KC earnings tax must not understand a couple of things:


Much of that tax is paid by people who don't live in Kansas City.
If the earnings tax goes away, Kansas City residents will almost certainly see their property taxes and sales taxes go up.
If the revenue isn't replaced, a hell of a lot of services will have to be cut. If you thought the snow removal was bad this year, just wait until the earnings tax goes away.


If I lived in Kansas City, I would fight like hell to convince my neighbors to keep the earnings tax so that people from Johnson County would continue to pay it. I live in Johnson County, so I'll come out way ahead if this tax is repealed.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 02:17 PM
I have noticed that all of candidates support the retention of the KC Earnings tax, despite the likelihood that it will be phased out if the voters get their way. Also, none of the candidates have mentioned cutting spending, or any other means to make up for the lost revenue.

I think that's because losing the revenue from the earnings tax is a short term financial problem for whoever ends up running the city even if it might be the best thing for the city in the long run.

Royal Fanatic
02-22-2011, 02:18 PM
If the rest of the people at city hall didn't like her, they always had the option to seek alternative employment.
That's really kind of an odd thing to say. It smacks of just giving the finger to people who object when you do something outrageous.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 02:21 PM
Any Kansas City voter who doesn't support retention of the KC earnings tax must not understand a couple of things:


Much of that tax is paid by people who don't live in Kansas City.
If the earnings tax goes away, Kansas City residents will almost certainly see their property taxes and sales taxes go up.
If the revenue isn't replaced, a hell of a lot of services will have to be cut. If you thought the snow removal was bad this year, just wait until the earnings tax goes away.


If I lived in Kansas City, I would fight like hell to convince my neighbors to keep the earnings tax so that people from Johnson County would continue to pay it. I live in Johnson County, so I'll come out way ahead if this tax is repealed.

Much of the sales tax isn't paid by people who live in Kansas City either. Like I said in my previous post, it will be a short term problem for the city if they lose that revenue, but over the long term the earnings tax has been and will continue to cost them jobs and services as companies choose to locate in the suburbs because of the extra tax burden.

The people of Kansas city need to realize that big government costs money and there are limits to how much of the cost you can pass on to outsiders.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 02:24 PM
That's really kind of an odd thing to say. It smacks of just giving the finger to people who object when you do something outrageous.

Is this the opinion of the guy whose top reason for refusing to support Funkhouser is that he's "suckling at his wife's teat"?

I don't think it's odd at all. What I do think is odd is basing your opinion of the Mayor on the degree to which he values his wife's advice rather than on his job-related track record.

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 02:27 PM
Any Kansas City voter who doesn't support retention of the KC earnings tax must not understand a couple of things:


Much of that tax is paid by people who don't live in Kansas City.
If the earnings tax goes away, Kansas City residents will almost certainly see their property taxes and sales taxes go up.
If the revenue isn't replaced, a hell of a lot of services will have to be cut. If you thought the snow removal was bad this year, just wait until the earnings tax goes away.


If I lived in Kansas City, I would fight like hell to convince my neighbors to keep the earnings tax so that people from Johnson County would continue to pay it. I live in Johnson County, so I'll come out way ahead if this tax is repealed.

While I am not endorsing nor condemning the earnings tax, I find it surprising that none of the mayoral candidates recognize that there is a very decent possibility of the tax going away. The fact that none of them have even considered what to do if it does is a mark against them all.

Royal Fanatic
02-22-2011, 02:49 PM
Is this the opinion of the guy whose top reason for refusing to support Funkhouser is that he's "suckling at his wife's teat"?

I don't think it's odd at all. What I do think is odd is basing your opinion of the Mayor on the degree to which he values his wife's advice rather than on his job-related track record.
That's a fair criticism of my position.

What would you say Funkhouser has accomplished that makes him deserving of a second term?

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 02:52 PM
The more I read, the more I dislike all of them. They all seem to support more funding for mass transit, and Funkhouser basically says I should be thankful to give up my car. Screw that.

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/26608504/detail.html

patteeu
02-22-2011, 03:04 PM
The more I read, the more I dislike all of them. They all seem to support more funding for mass transit, and Funkhouser basically says I should be thankful to give up my car. Screw that.

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/26608504/detail.html

Yes, he's definitely on the wrong side of that one, IMO, but like you said, the whole group is covered in warts.

HonestChieffan
02-22-2011, 03:09 PM
Anyone endorsed by previous mayors would ba no, anyone the Star likes would be a no, anyone Alvin Brooks likes would be a no. The city council should be ousted.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 03:10 PM
That's a fair criticism of my position.

What would you say Funkhouser has accomplished that makes him deserving of a second term?

I've got even less of a dog in the fight than you do as no one in my family is even subject to the earnings tax so I don't follow KCMO politics too closely, but my impression of Funkhouser is that he's focused on more basic, mundane issues like decaying infrastructure (e.g. sewers and roads) rather than flashy projects (fountains on troost, KCPL district, Sprint Center, etc.). Personally, I like the idea of taking care of the basic responsibility before moving on to the flash (although his support of expanded mass transit is a head scratcher to me). My impression is that he's honest about the challenges facing the city.

I'm by no means a Funkhouser fan though. He's a committed liberal and that's not my bag. He's not as bad as most of what passes for leadership in KCMO though, IMO.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 03:10 PM
Anyone endorsed by previous mayors would ba no, anyone the Star likes would be a no, anyone Alvin Brooks likes would be a no. The city council should be ousted.

Good rules to live by, right there.

mnchiefsguy
02-22-2011, 03:15 PM
Anyone endorsed by previous mayors would ba no, anyone the Star likes would be a no, anyone Alvin Brooks likes would be a no. The city council should be ousted.

While I agree with this, the problem is that it leaves me no one to vote for :(

I do not like the idea of not voting, as I feel it is part of being a citizen...but none of these candidates really seem to match my preferences.

healthpellets
02-22-2011, 03:25 PM
This is the first year i haven't concerned myself with the KC mayor's race. Of course, it's the first time i've not lived in KC.

However, I've seen the commercials of course. And in Funk's most recent one, he mentions two accomplishments, then brags about snow removal being great.

That was it for me. If snow removal is one of your top three accomplishments, you're dead to me.

jettio
02-22-2011, 04:09 PM
I don't see why his desire to have a trusted aide at his side is such a big issue, even if she happened to be his wife. If the rest of the people at city hall didn't like her, they always had the option to seek alternative employment. Whatever disruption there was, was at least as much the fault of those who didn't like his wife being there as it was of the Funkhousers. And the lawsuits were idiotic. The city should have fought them instead of settling.

The truth is that Funkhouser ruffled feathers of the city's establishment and they fought back in any way they could. IMO, the city's establishment has long been corrupt and has proven that they aren't good for the city. Ruffling their feathers is a feather in one's cap, IMO, to mix my metaphors.

The sports complex issue is a more legitimate beef for those who think a city ought to subsidize it's pro sports teams to make sure they don't leave.

The problem with Funkhouser is that he won election by campaigning on the idea that his experience as a respected and knowledgeable City Auditor made him the best person to be a mayor that already knew everything it was possible to know about city government.

Acting like he could not function without his wife completely undermined his strongest selling point.

Funkhouser's biggest enemies are not people with feathers ruffled by him.

Funkhouser's biggest enemies are the people that believed in him that he made to feel foolish when he decided not to be the man he claimed to be.

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 06:21 PM
While I am not endorsing nor condemning the earnings tax, I find it surprising that none of the mayoral candidates recognize that there is a very decent possibility of the tax going away. The fact that none of them have even considered what to do if it does is a mark against them all.

When the general election is simply a coronation of the Democrat who came out on top, this is what you get.

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 06:24 PM
The problem with Funkhouser is that he won election by campaigning on the idea that his experience as a respected and knowledgeable City Auditor made him the best person to be a mayor that already knew everything it was possible to know about city government.

Acting like he could not function without his wife completely undermined his strongest selling point.

Funkhouser's biggest enemies are not people with feathers ruffled by him.

Funkhouser's biggest enemies are the people that believed in him that he made to feel foolish when he decided not to be the man he claimed to be.

Is your beef that he couldn't effectively govern without his top advisor or that his top advisor is his wife? Independently, neither of those seem to be eggregious.

jettio
02-22-2011, 06:36 PM
Is your beef that he couldn't effectively govern without his top advisor or that his top advisor is his wife? Independently, neither of those seem to be eggregious.

I don't have any beef. I am making the observation that Funkhouser's biggest foes are the ones who are embarrassed that they once believed in him.

Instead of being the competent non-politican, he became the incompetent king of mean and petty squabbles.

Saul Good
02-22-2011, 07:51 PM
I don't have any beef. I am making the observation that Funkhouser's biggest foes are the ones who are embarrassed that they once believed in him.

Instead of being the competent non-politican, he became the incompetent king of mean and petty squabbles.

So what did he do that was wrong? The best thing the city council could attack him on was having his wife as an unpaid adviser. I've never heard him say anything mean, and the pettiness was 100% on the city council.

patteeu
02-22-2011, 08:05 PM
If the complaint about Funkhouser is that he didn't get much done, that makes him better than just about all the KC mayors I can remember, all of whom seemed to leave the place in worse shape than when they took office.

KurtCobain
02-22-2011, 10:00 PM
So which one cares the most about sports?

dirk digler
02-22-2011, 10:02 PM
Funkhouser is out