Hello, Prairie Village.

The judge ruling on our case to 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗧 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗞𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗣𝗩 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 has corrected and clarified her earlier contradictory rulings.

I’ve said from the beginning that this is the 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗳𝗳 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 to ensure full legality of the language, in case the residents voted to approve all the ballots, 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀.

As it turns out our city attorneys provided sound advice, and the judge ruled as expected based on recent case law in nearby Kansas municipalities.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 in 1) defending the city against possible lawsuits and 2) parsing and updating all of our ordinances and regulations that would contradict such narrow definitions and imprecise language respectively.

We also were not suing PV residents. We applied for a declaratory judgement from the district court with no monetary damages requested no matter the outcome.

All of this 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 if former councilmembers/advisors and their attorney had accurately written ballot language that would pass legal muster and if they had coordinated with city staff and experts to better understand how planning and zoning works.

Unfortunately, they did all of their work in the dark, not only from city staff and council, but from residents as well, when they didn’t make the petition language public and easily accessible for residents to read at home and digest on their own time.

Additionally, they waited until the last possible minute to submit their signed petitions – presumably to force the city’s hand and not allow us time to do our due diligence.

I believe the saying goes, “procrastination on your part, does not constitute an emergency on my part”. This fits here. Government doesn’t work fast, and that’s a good thing to ensure that the best decisions are made for the community.

Unfortunately, the Stop group’s procrastination also most likely increased City attorney costs, because the judge was rushed to try to meet the County Election Commissioner deadline for the November ballot, and she made a mistake that anyone could have made when rushing. This forced two motions to be filed for clarification and more meetings.

The County and City met all of the initial deadlines required to respond to a resident petition, and then we did our jobs to ensure the ballot language was or was not legal. However, even 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲 to be on this year’s November ballot.

Recap:

• 3,212 “certified” signatures on a ballot doesn’t automatically mean it gets voted on. There are legal bars to clear first.
• “Substantively correct on technical issues” does not always mean legally correct for state law.
• Good enough for signature certification does not mean legally correct for state law.
• The 𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 and will be on a future election ballot TBD. However, without a legal adoption ballot to go with it, it constitutes no change to PV government if approved.

In my adult life I’ve often heard another phrase: “good enough for government work” in the ironic sense, not the original meaning.

𝗡𝗼𝗽𝗲! 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗲 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝘆.

If you signed the petition to “stop rezoning” in Prairie Village, I imagine you are very disappointed and confused right now. You feel let down by the petition-writers, not only for doing such a poor job but also for 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 when the Stop attorney asked the County Election Commissioner in writing to focus mainly on the two form of government petitions (i.e. not the zoning petition).

I would be really disappointed and angry if I were you too! I hope your anger is directed at the correct group of people now and that you understand that the City and Council are working to protect YOU, as we should be.

If you have questions about R1 zoning and what modifications are being discussed 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 by City Council, please reach out to your councilmember at councilmembers@pvkansas.com, and your council members WILL get back to you.

We are not, and have never been, discussing adding or inviting:

1) low-income housing

2) affordable housing

3) vouchers

Despite the dog-whistles these terms are and that we cringe at, staff and council know that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗲 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲. Our land is too expensive, right? That’s of course what we’ve all been complaining about to the county appraiser for over a decade.

We are also not, and have never been, talking about allowing:

4) single or mass rezoning of R1 (single-family) into R2-and-higher in the middle of R1 city blocks and neighborhoods

5) allowing a neighbor or developer to teardown a single-family home in the middle of R1 city blocks and neighborhoods and replace it with a high-rise

6) taking away any homeowner rights that you currently have.

This turned into a longer post that I originally planned, but I think it’s more informative for it, and I hope you’ll share it in its entirety with your PV friends, family, and neighbors.

Your neighbor,

Bonnie

See Judge’s ruling here. It is actually quite brief and easy to read:

prairie-village-petitions-final-ruling

Key quotes:

Regarding the “Rezoning” Petition:

Among the many problems, the definition of “rezoning” only refers to a change from a more restrictive zone to less restrictive zones. The Petition references only R-1 districts, but the definition of rezoning would apply city wide. … The title of the Rezoning Petition mentions accessory dwelling units, however nothing in the body of the Petition makes any reference to these. The Petition’s language is ambiguous. It is clear that expertise knowledge and planning are required when setting forth a rezoning petition as it impacts other portions of city planning. (emphasis not in original)

Regarding the “Adoption” of a new government Petition:

While the term for the current Mayor is set, the term for the future Mayor is not. The omission of the mayor’s term of office under the new governing body is a deficiency too great to ignore and does not amount to substantial compliance with the law. “Petitioners must comply with the essential matters necessary to assure every reasonable objective of the statutes has been met.” City of Wichita v. Peterjohn, 62 Kan. App. 2d 750, 522 P.3d 385, 387 (2022). The law clearly requires the petition establish the membership and terms of office of the governing body. The Defendants failed to do so; therefore, the petition is not valid. (emphasis not in original)