Barnes Owes Kansas City Answers

A story appears in this week’s edition of the Kansas City Business Journal about Cordish, Kay Barnes, and the supposed promise to keep Cordish’s “festival district” exclusive.  The headline says that Barnes “disagree(s)” with Cordish, but, oddly, Barnes is never actually quoted in the article.

Instead, Barnes sends someone else to speak for her.  Unable to stand up to the company that is funding her congressional run to the tune of $8000, Barnes hides behind a spokesman.  While her spokesman swears he is speaking for Barnes, wouldn’t it be better to hear from the former mayor herself?  Isn’t it time for Barnes to sit down with a reputable reporter and answer these questions, without dodging.

Why did she negotiate such soft contracts with Cordish?

Why did the city give so much financially to get so little? 

Was Cordish promised exclusivity in any sense for open container laws?

Why the Cordish contract did allow them to set their own opening date?

Why does the Cordish contract allow them to set parking rates?

Why has she accepted campaign contributions from Cordish, given her personal role in negotiating with them?

Kay Barnes has a history of ducking hard questions.  It is about time the local media held her feet to the fire.  The Cordish contracts are as good a place as any to start.

Comments

[northernthunder]

All one has to do is look at the mandate that Funkhouser got in March 2007 in Clay and Platte County. The same scenario applies to her now in the northland.. Even if MF has pucked up city hall and the mayor's office. Seriously, Barnes is going to get tattooed. Wait, doesn't she already have a tattoo? It is on her crown, the Laqueen of TIFFA? lol