Bryan Stalder
Contributor

In recent months, a series of high-profile ordinances and development projects has left many Kansas City residents—particularly in the Historic Northeast—questioning whether their voices are being heard. From stadium funding to public safety policies, community members say a pattern of “behind-closed-doors” decision-making is emerging.

The most recent example involves a proposal from the City Council to appropriate approximately $600 million toward a new $1.9 billion stadium project in Washington Square Park. Unlike previous regional approaches, this plan limits direct involvement from Jackson County voters, a move that has sparked immediate backlash.

“Well, we voted against the stadium in 2024… and now look!!” Lillyan Wright Storm wrote on social media. “Our votes didn’t count!!! Does that sound fair????”

Aurora Raine Puka echoed this frustration: “Input? Not at all. We had no vote, so we had no say. The People need to vote on these issues, not suits in offices.”

Similar concerns surround the state-led mental health facility at Independence Avenue and The Paseo. While the facility addresses a critical need, it sits on the former Chouteau Courts site—land once envisioned as a walkable, mixed-use bridge between the Northeast and downtown. “I didn’t even hear about a mental health facility on Independence Avenue. Where can I get information about that?” asked Jeanette Ramsay.

Additionally, the relocation of a planned municipal detention center from U.S. 40 Highway to Front Street occurred with limited public engagement prior to the announcement. Longtime Northeast resident Michael Bushnell was blunt about the shift: “How about that new jail that Mayor Quinton Lucas decided with ZERO transparency that it needed to be relocated to Front Street? City Hall could give two hoots about what the public thinks.”

Questions have also emerged around smaller-scale policy decisions.  Earlier this month, the City Council approved an ordinance restricting the sale of single-serving alcoholic beverages in select corridors, including parts of Independence Avenue, to combat litter, public intoxication, and other criminal activity. However, the council later amended the ordinance to exempt the Main Street corridor, raising concerns about consistency.

For many, the issue is a perceived lack of equity in how these burdens are distributed. “We’re very unhappy with how the city treats us here in the Historic Northeast,” wrote Alexus Atchison. “They’re building another homeless shelter and a mental health facility here, and we feel like the dumping ground for the city.”

Zoey Baughman shared a similar sentiment: “The city doesn’t do anything when we report things or just to help.”

While city officials defend these decisions as necessary responses to complex public health and economic challenges, a deep erosion of trust is evident among the electorate.

“I don’t feel like there’s enough transparency or context in regard to how these projects interact with the current budget responsibilities,” wrote Richie Wolfe. “We give too many tax incentives to private developments and not enough towards public developments.”

Jeni Dreamsaretenapenny added sarcastically, “Transparency? What’s this mythical beast you speak of?”

However, not everyone agrees that every decision should be a public referendum. Justin Wilson noted, “That’s why we elect representatives to the city council. To act and make informed decisions on our behalf.”

David Zagalik cautioned that if citizens had to vote for everything, “then nothing would ever be accomplished.”

Despite these differing views on governance, the demand for better communication remains high. As the city pursues large-scale development, the divide between City Hall and Northeast appears to be widening.

Whether the solution lies in more public meetings or clearer budget contexts, the sentiment of the community is perhaps best captured by Rodney Hader: “If you have to ask, that’s proof of lack of transparency.”