Few short phrases conjure quick thoughts in Johnson County like King Louie, particularly these days.
In Kansas City in 1980s and 1990s, King Louie Lanes were all over town, and one very large megacenter, with an ice rink and billiards, was in the heart of Johnson County.
To many long-time Johnson Countians, "King Louie" is a phrase that immediately recalls an image of this center. ABC's Wide World of Sports, when that was a thing, broadcast national bowling tournaments--when those were things--from King Louie's Metcalf location, when that was a thing.
Yet, King Louie isn't much of a thing these days to most Johnson Countians.
Among those most wired with Johnson County politics, that phrase creates an instant reaction. The county purchased this site a few years ago on about as much of a lark as a $3 million investment can be.
Take away the few dozen most wired with Johnson County politics, that phrase, though, likely just brings up some sentiment of moment spent there, often from a high-school party.
I see that phrase and I always think, "The Jungle Book." Then, again, that's what I thought any time I passed a King Louie facility in the 1980s and 1990s.
Point is, the King Louie property is hyperly tuned into some because of the recent purchase, but the average Johnson Countian internalizes "King Louie" more than considers what the county is doing with this facility.
Yet, this property, since its purchase, has sat in limbo--the initial vision wasn't grounded enough to allow it come to fruition and yet repurposing the building requires investment that, to some, seems like throwing good money after bad.
The Election Office has been marginally conjoined with this property. Possibly, this facility may be able to be used as one of the county's advance voting locations, but I first became aware that this was a reason for the purchase of the property about two hours before the concept was presented to the Board of County Commissioners a few years ago.
This past Thursday, the Board reviewed a very impressive, well-coordinated pitch on a new view of the center's future. The total cost of plan, counting the earlier investment, is about $22 million.
Personally, if the County feels this facility meets needs and it has the money, I am extremely neutral to the whole idea. I'm never jealous for others achieving their dreams; I just want to achieve mine, too.
My dreams are pretty basic and linked to 2016, mostly.
Speaking of 2016--looking at the turnout from the 2008 presidential election (79 percent) and the number of polling places (284 compared to 182 this past November), and considering the potential for historical firsts if candidates in both parties become the eventual presidential nominees, our cost for the presidential election will be at least $2 million more than the 2014 election.
This isn't from discretionary spending. It's akin to "keeping the lights on," a phrase often used by our budget office and the county manager.
We will need at least 100 more polling places, and there's nothing to suggest we can find that many.
We will then need more advance voting sites, and there's nothing to suggest that's possible. At the very least, we will be paying much more rent for advance sites than we did in 2008. Our election workers will need to have their training costs at least adjusted for minimum wage and they really could use a raise--they haven't had one since 2006. Postage is likely to increase.
 |
| The Non-Jungle Book Version of King Louie |
Those $2 million costs don't seem to be on anyone's radar so I'm telling everyone I can at every chance I can. (Yes, Dear Reader, you are inside the Looking Glass at this very moment).
As long as this property doesn't get in the way of elections, such a basic--the basic--piece of government, who am I to complain?
Still, of the $2 million "keep the lights on," amount, King Louie has the chance to mitigate just $25,000 IF we can use the facility for the August and November elections.
We use the same locations for both elections, so King Louie is of no use to us in November 2016 if it isn't available until July for us to set up for August. Otherwise, our first time there will be August 2018.
This represents my rub with this issue. A savings of $25,000 every other year, in today's dollars, as providing one advance voting location--not all advance voting, but one of at least 4 sites--is relatively small in terms of the total project costs. Yet, advance voting is listed as a primary reason for investing in the facility.
It's not lost on me that while there was an orchestrated presentation to the Board, I wasn't asked to be part of this pitch. Hopefully, others noticed that as well.
The need, though, to have it sooner so we can use the facility in 2016 was well-represented by the county's Bureau Chief. Two of the Commissioners did bring up my concern in the meeting, and I talked with another before the meeting.
I think that everyone involved is on board with my 2016 concerns. And, full circle, if we get the advance voting facility, that will be a nice thing. It's not an advance voting panacea. But, one less thing, that's for sure.
We spend a lot of cycles trying to negotiate advance voting sites.
We may be at place very soon where we have 10 advance voting locations because we we are losing polling place locations faster than we are getting new one. Having one good-sized advance voting site in the can will never be bad.
In that regard, as my version of King Louie would say, "I'm tired of monkeying around." There will be less of that if we have this facility.
(Click here to the link to the meeting--in that link is a link for the presentation, worth downloading and reviewing).
0 comments:
Post a Comment