JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

The true kick-off of the Kansas City mayor’s race occurred yesterday in the most appropriate of places, the City Council Chambers on the 26th floor of City Hall.

The scene was the showdown vote on the nine-month-old issue (some might call it soap opera) over whether to rename The Paseo after civil rights legend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The Kansas City Star reported the dry facts: After more than an hour of debate, the council voted 8-4, with Mayor Sly James out of town, to replace the name The Paseo with Dr. Martin Luther King J. Boulevard.

Too bad the story didn’t reflect the intensity of the occasion; it was one of the most arresting debates that has taken place in the Council Chambers in many years.

I wasn’t there. I watched at home on the government channel. (Check the listings for rebroadcasts.) But even from the cocoon of my living room, I could feel the tension and emotion escalating.

The chamber was about two-thirds full, thanks to a push by Kansas City black ministers, who for months have been pushing for the name change against a backdrop of resistance from a significant number of people who preferred a street, like 63rd or Linwood, that extended into largely white portions of the city.

The ministers and other advocates on hand were demanding resolution yesterday, and they were not going to be denied. They interrupted some speakers (those against) with boos and catcalls, and they rained applause and shouts of encouragement on council members who spoke in favor.

There’s a point in politics when you don’t want to stand in front of a tidal wave, and the four council members who stood firm against the renaming made a big mistake. A “yes” vote was assured from the get-go, and there was little to be gained by holding fingers in the dike.

It was fitting that Sly James wasn’t there because this was a battle about present and future politics, and James is on his way out the door.

Six of the 12 Council members who took part in yesterday’s debate are running for mayor. One of them almost certainly will be the next mayor, and chances are two of them will emerge from the April 2 primary and be the finalists in the June general election.

The council members running for mayor are Quinton Lucas, Jermaine Reed, Jolie Justus, Scott Taylor, Scott Wagner and Alissia Canaday.

Of those six, only Canaday and Wagner voted “no” yesterday.

They were joined in dissent by Northland council members Heather Hall and Dan Fowler.

Joining Lucas, Reed, Justus and Taylor on the “yes” side were Teresa Loar, Lee Barnes, Katheryn Shields and Kevin McManus.

**

I wrote back in October that Lucas  was “probably the most eloquent and charismatic” among all the mayoral candidates and that he appeared to be “the kind of candidate who could make big strides in a short time.”

Yesterday may well prove to have been a breakout day for him. He gave a spirited, off-the-cuff speech in which he deftly countered — and buried — direct and indirect criticism from two council members.

The direct criticism came from Canaday, who charged that he had “grandstanded” the issue and had not taken into consideration opposition that she had heard from several neighborhoods along the Troost/Paseo corridors.

The indirect criticism came from Wagner, who, as mayor pro tem, was presiding in James’ absence. Wagner mounted what I would characterize, regrettably, as petty rationale against the renaming. He said the city had failed to maintain Martin Luther King Jr. Park, located along Brush Creek between Swope Parkway and Cleaver Boulevard.

The 42-acre park lies within Lucas’ 3rd District, and Wagner seemed to imply Lucas was partly responsible for its “pathetic” and “disgraceful” condition by not directing sufficient capital improvements funds toward its upkeep. Wagner went on to suggest that if a park already named for King was not adequately maintained, a boulevard named for him might fall into equal disregard.

While Wagner was talking, Lucas jotted down a few notes, and then he rose to speak.

Here’s part of what he said…

It seems like throughout this whole discussion — for all the months we’ve been going — there are 1,000 different reasons that people have gotten to “no.”

And it’s been fascinating to listen to the debate today. One of the reasons for “no” is this is all political grandstanding by just me — which is fascinating. Another reason for “no” is that this is not enough. We need to build more statues; we need to build all these other things, which no one has actually come to us — including (people) on this council — and actually proposed.

At the time of his passing he (King) had a 33 percent approval rating. And the reason for that was because he pushed for things that were controversial but were right. And so my thought on this today…instead of us continuing to come up with 1,000 reasons to say “no,” let’s think about why “yes” on The Paseo.

Why “yes” on Paseo is we actually have a number of people who say, “Let’s recognize somebody who was vitally important in our our community. Let’s have that recognition be in a majority-black community area.” We don’t actually have to stretch from other parts of the community to say that we have a hero we can recognize in our own neighborhood.

**

Lucas went on to urge his colleagues not to “kick the can down the road for two years or three years or 10, when I’m replaced by a new grandstander.”

Concluding his speech, he looked at Wagner and said, “I appreciate your comments, but I certainly think it’s a time for us to get to ‘yes’ instead of a continued ‘no.’ “

The audience erupted into applause, and if there were any doubts about where the vote was headed, they had evaporated.

…The Paseo died yesterday. I loved the name and will miss it. But an emotional wave swept away all objections, and, assuming a questionable DUI charge against Lucas is downgraded or dismissed, a strong mayoral run was born.