And so it begins...

if I understand it correctly, I thought only property owners would vote. Renters were not given the opportunity. So I don't understand why he is asking his renters to vote no.

Negative. Residents of the district (who requested a ballot by May 22) are voting--owners and renters.

that's correct: 8 voters total in all 15 buildings. little to no impact, but good to know it's out there before the second vote in the fall. moving on...

yesterday was the first meeting of the mayoral streetcar governance committee, which was formed to define a new authority that will operate the streetcar (even when it expands beyond downtown). this is similar to the portland model. transit action network did a nice write-up: http://transactionkc.com/2012/05/30/mayoral-streetcar-governance-committee-holds-first-meeting/

You obviously haven't been watching GOP attack ads. McCaskill is Obama's right-hand man (woman)!

Too bad they don't know it.

I don't know the case law, but in a federal election this sort of "warning" may well be illegal, as threatening a voter's financial interests in order to sway his vote constitutes voter intimidation.

But it looks like prohibitions on financial threats don't really exist under Missouri's electoral law. The closest thing is the prohibition on buying or contracting for votes under 115.635(6):

If we are awarded the grant and say there is a change in Presidential administrations this fall, is there any chance the grant is revoked?

In case it was unclear, I meant the landlords -- not the tenants -- were the "shitbags" in question, and that people should flood those landlords business and home phones, email them and mail letters to their houses to let them know that their attempt at voter intimidation/coercion/bullying is intolerable, undemocratic and unwelcome in our city.

Though I'm dissappointed that they did this, I'm not going to beat them up for it. No more than I'm going to throw stones at property owners who suggest that their tenants vote in favor of improved transit.

It was just a dumb move.

The funny thing is, I'm betting that a lot of their tenants who were undecided on the vote, will now vote in favor of the streetcar. None of us wants to be told what to do and we especially don't like hearing "or else...".

A "suggestion" is one thing. "Coercion" is quite another.

In scenarios where a landlord attempts to compel a vote, one way or another, by threatening some adverse action, I'd certainly hope that any democratic minded American would throw stones. This goes both ways. The landlord who threatens increased rent for "yes" votes is as despicable as the landlord who threatens eviction for "no" votes.

From what I could tell this letter was no different that then GOP saying if you vote Democratic your taxes will increase. It just points out that "If my costs increase it is very likely the rents will increase." Which is more logical than the GOP threat of higher taxes with the Dems.

Well, it's quite a bit different because the federal government is quite a bit different than a landlord. Like, ya know, you don't have a lease agreement with the federal government for your rent. So, that's a pretty big difference.

Or, if a GOP or RNC attack group advertises something on the TV or radio, that's quite a bit different than your congressman writing you a letter saying... "if you vote for _______, I'm going to take it out on my constituents in the following ways..."

Can anyone imagine if Kris Kobach wrote a letter to JoCo voters warning them not to vote for Obama, or else...

Yes, it is all about what words are used.

If the landlord says "If this passes I am going to raise the rent by $25 or whatever"as opposed to using "might have to consider raising" instead of "going to raise". I take it like a person telling a rally that someone (without naming a name) who does some specific act should have something done to them as opposed to John Doe should be shot. The former is freedom of speech whereas the latter is a call to action. Something like the Ted Nugent affair.

If KK used official letterhead that is one thing. A blank piece of paper would be something else.

I get where you're coming from akp and I even agree that it may be somewhat iffy if the landlord frames it as "if my costs go up because of this I may have to raise rent to compensate" or something, but there's still a pretty clear difference between a political party saying "if you vote the other guys in, they'll do something bad" and a landlord saying "if you vote for something I don't like, I'll do something bad."

This is what was said in the article:



Urging to vote one way is not telling you how to vote. Just semantics but still urging is not as strong as telling. And raising the prospect is still not the same as saying there will be. Again semantics. At least in this he is not saying he will actually do something except consider it.

I look at it like the weather service saying a tornado watch instead of a tornado warning.

You may possess the worst analogies ever.

I do agree with you that they probably danced around the issue with wording enough to avoid any problems but there is no doubt what they are telling their tenants...and I'm sure most tenants would gladly pay it.

Pretty shitty of them. They obviously "supported" downtown when they could get cheap buildings and rent them out....

Sometimes we humans have the ability to read between the lines. Ya know? Decipher hidden messages?

If my boss tells me that my hours have been a bit low and that they may, possibly need to start considering other options in the future, he's telling me to work harder or I'm fired. See how that works?

That is true but when it becomes a legal issue the actual words used are what counts.

So what's the word on the TIGER money? Are we going to find out this week?