Queens Road v City Hall, Ph I

Update 08/09/2019

Two homeowners worked together to prepare a new graphically enhanced fundraising flyer based on information from the July 7 homeowners' meeting. On August 7, 2019, these flyers were mailed to every homeowner in both the street and signal district, and to every homeowner in the signal district only.

The flyer explains the situation the City has placed homeowners in and we hope it will spur additional hard-money contributions from nearly 60 current contributors and , importantly, new contributions from the 250 homeowners who have yet to make a contribution. Our decision to proceed with the lawsuit will be based on the amount of contributions we receive no later than August 31, 2019. We strongly encourage all to make a full contribution so we can continue to prosecute the lawsuit to a successful conclusion.

A successful conclusion means assessments for the signal district will be eliminated for all and assessments for the street district will either be reduced to 25%-35% of that shown on individual assessment liens or, eliminated in full for some. Risking 10% of your assessment lien to force the City to follow laws it is statutorily obligated to follow and to reduce assessments to a level any other homeowner in the City's limits would pay by policy for a similar street improvement, continues to make financial sense. Thank you and please contact me if I can provide any additional information - Kurt


Update 07/10/2019

On July 3, 2019, in a 15-page decision, the judge ruled our claim for trial and permanent injunctive relief can proceed and also ruled in favor of the City's motion to dismiss our claim for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction (tro/pi). This because there was insufficient evidence currently before the court to establish we had a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of our claim.

The judge's ruling was important in two ways. First and most importantly, the dismissal of the tro/pi has no material affect on how the City proceeds. A decision to proceed with the project is now fully under control of the City however, if it chooses to proceed and loses at trial, it will have to unwind the districts' and their assessments, a nightmarish administrative effort, and it will also incur payment for irreparable damages caused by its action. In addition, the City has stated in court that it will voluntarily maintain the status quo until a decision is reached. Second, the judge was very thorough in identifying 41 Findings of Fact and 29 Conclusions of Law that were very informative. These findings mirrord the City's filings and made it clear our attorney's decision not to file a response to the City's various answers, motions and summaries, an effort to maintain a less confusing 30,000' view of the case, was an error. For this judge, it is clear that statutory citations are not a substitute for evidentiary proof and further, that lacking written filings in response to the City's filings, the judge had no choice but to rule as she did. Fortunately, the judge's specificity allows us to provide filings and information in the future responsive to each item in the judge's ruling. Evidentiary proof largely contained in the City's various filings that can be further substantiated in pre-trial "discovery".

On July 7, 2019 another group homeowners meeting was held which was again well attended. We reviewed the judge's ruling and a LJW newspaper article that many reasonably but, mistakenly, read to say we had lost our case against the City. We also discussed a substantial A/R with the attorney that has grown faster than contributions. I suggested that since I am the only one responsible for this debt and do not have the financial resources to make payment, proceeding further will require hard-cash contributions in the near-term. Five options were presented, namely; 1) Do Nothing - in this case, the assessment liens filed in December 2018 against every homeowner in the district will be enforced and will be reflected in property tax bills in August 2020; 2) Ask for Reconsideration of the Ruling - in this case, we will likely incur another $10,000 in legal fees and, while it may make us feel good and give the City a legal reason not to proceed, it is likely to have no material affect on how the project and/or the lawsuit proceeds, and I will be left with a $20,000 debt to cover the A/R; 3) Move forward to pre-trial Discovery - in this case, we will likely incur another $20,000 in legal fees over and above the A/R. Discovery is often where lawsuits are settled in order to avoid the expense of trial and/or the release of information that is difficult or unnecessary to explain; and, 4) Move forward to Trial - in this case, pre-trial discovery will have been conducted and we will likely incur another $10,000 in legal fees over and above those in the A/R and pre-trial discovery to proceed to trial.

The typical homeowner has an assessment lien of $4,000 for the street district and $400 for the signal improvement. If all 205 homeowners in both the street and signal districts, and 113 homeowners in the signal district only, contribute 10% of their assessment lien to the lawsuit, more than $80,000 will be available to fund the lawsuit, an amount 10% greater than that estimated to successfully prosecute the case. Successful prosecution will mean assessments for the signal district will be eliminated and assessments for the street district will either be reduced to 25%-35% of that shown on individual assessment liens or, eliminated in full for some. Risking 10% of an assessment lien to force the City to follow laws which it is statutorily obligated to follow and to reduce assessments to a level any other homeowner in the City's limits would pay by policy for a similar street improvement in the City's limits, continues to make financial sense.

I am confident we have the evidentiary proof necessary to prevail at trial as are several independent attorneys and law professors who have willingly volunteered their time to review court filings and our supplementary information. One independent attorney however, believes we will be unable to overcome the broad discretion the court's commonly grant to any jurisdiction in the State.


Update 05/20/2019
We continue to await the judge's decision on the injunction based on amended filings both parties returned to the court on April 1. Contributions of $600 were received in April and non have yet been received for May. Thank you all for your generous help.

Because we still have a large legal bill outstanding, I encourage all to make a contribution before the end of May. In addition, I updated a general information flyer and fundraising request available upon request that I am using to reach out to State and federal elected officials, media organizations and other benefactors with deeper pockets than us in an effort to pay the bills and re-build a war chest in preparation for trial and appeal. Thank you for your support and continuing patience - Kurt


Update 04/14/2019
Think you can't fight City Hall? In our case, you can. The court found in State, ex rel., v. City of Overland Park, (215 Kan. 700),; "... The power of a municipality to create special benefit districts and assess the property in the district for improvements is completely controlled by statute. Local government has no power by implication. It acquires no powers except those expressly granted and those necessary to make the express powers effective ...".

Where do contributions stand? First and foremost a reminder. Our efforts continue to be strictly voluntary and 100% of contributions go to legal fees and court costs. We have yet to receive a contribution in April but, since the start of the year 56 of the 205 homeowners in the street district have generously contributed to legal fees and court costs.  In January, we had 1 contribution of $2,736. In February, 20 contributions totaling $4,790. In March, 32 contributions totaling $7,530. We wouldn't have gotten this far without your active support and generous contributions. I am hopeful, with the passing of tax-day and a renewed emphasis on fundraising, we can pay the bills currently due and past due.

The issue we face is not a matter of budget, it makes financial sense for homeowners to contribute either $400 or 10% of their assessment over a period of months if needed, an amount more than sufficient to fund the case. Rather, our issue is cash-flow and our ability to pay bills on time. In this regard, our attorneys' have generously contributed part of their time but, as a small business, they can't afford to finance our case. And, while I am doing what I can to support our attorneys' based on my own 30-years experience in engineering and public improvement financing, I don't have the resources to cover shortfalls. With your continuing support and contributions, I have no doubt we can bring this case to a successful conclusion. If you can, please remember now is not too late to:

• make another contribution,

• encourage your neighbors, family and friends to make a contribution and link this website to your social media account to reach a wider audience,

• encourage those in your workplace to make a contribution, and

• encourage your homebuilder, realtor, and/or landlord to make a contribution.

So, where does our case stand? As you may recall, at the 2nd hearing the Judge listened to oral arguments regarding the City's motion to dismiss Count III, the injunction. The hearing highlighted several factual predicates that were previously overlooked by the City and the Judge asked for clarity on these issues as well as each party's view of conclusions of law from two prior cases. The Judge asked for amended briefs based on court transcripts which were filed on April 1 and now, we await either a written decision or a 3rd hearing on the injunction. Because any decision reached will be subject to appeal, I suspect the Judge is taking the time necessary to give arguments on both sides the due consideration they lawfully deserve.

Perhaps a typical $4,000 assessment on your property is affordable but, for many on fixed or limited incomes, it is not. Perhaps equally important, like Thomas Edison once said, "... The strength of our laws lie in the will of the people to defend them ...". In our case, the laws are on our side as are issues of "civics" and good governance. We have not one but, more than 10 legal issues the court has decided before. They involve tax levies in the form of special assessments 25%-100% greater than lawfully allowed and an egregious disregard for a body of law intended to ensure the cost of public improvements and services are uniformly distributed among taxpayers. In our case, issues that not only affect our pocketbooks today but also, the pocketbooks of future residents of our fair City and throughout the State if we fail to prosecute this case to a successful conclusion.

As I've said before, only indifference or insufficient funds can stop us from succeeding. If you have questions or would like a flyer with additional information about the project, the districts, or you have other ideas how to help, please contact me. Thank you again - Kurt


Update - 20/28/2018
More good news - our injunction continues to be observed. My personal thanks to all who attended our 1st hearing and then brought friends and neighbors to pack the courtroom at the 2nd hearing. Our Judge has been thoroughly prepared, gives due consideration to arguments presented by both sides and, despite an overwhelming amount of tedious and mundane material, asks the pertinent types of questions that cut to the chase.

Next up, following receipt of court transcripts on March 15th, both party's will have two weeks to submit amended pleadings and answers in response to oral arguments along with each party's view of the applicability of decisions reached in Davies v City of Lawrence, and in Steffes v City of Lawrence specific to a 5th element of injunctive relief which is now part of State law. The Judge will then decide on continuing the injunction by written order or, more likely in a 3rd hearing to follow. I strongly believe each of these things add yet further weight to another favorable court decision to come.

In the next update, I will include a summary of generous contributions that are only reflected in part on this site. Both the number of supporters and the amount of individual contributions are increasing but, more are urgently needed to keep our attorneys paid. Attorneys who have also contributed a part of their time to support our case. Each hearing adds $500-$1,000 in legal costs with 5-10 times that in preparation. It's unfortunate the City seems unwilling to acknowledge that both the districts and assessments imposed on hundreds of homeowners are unlawful and, unnecessarily wasting the limited resources of both the residents and our City which could otherwise be spent for other urgent needs. Fortunately, our numbers are large and, if we all contribute 10% of our pending assessment, this very winnable lawsuit becomes affordable, makes financial sense, and will result in assessments, if any, that are both fair and comply with local, State and federal law. In that light, please share this site with your neighbors and friends as well as members of the development, homebuilding and real estate industry, all of which benefit by having the City comply with applicable law.

Only indifference or insufficient funds can stop us. We urgently need your continuing interest and financial support.  If you have questions or would like a flyer with additional information about the project, the districts, or other ways to contribute, please contact me - Thank you - Kurt

Update - 02/11/2019
As you know, the Judge originally assigned to hear our case recused herself. This caused our case to be reassigned to a different Judge and our court hearing to be rescheduled. In response, the City submitted routine procedural defenses to dismiss two of our three claims. They did not submit a routine motion to dismiss our claim to dissolve the districts and their tax assessments but, did file routine defenses to dismiss our claims for Inverse Condemnation and Injunctive Relief. To accommodate the City's motions, our new Judge added another pre-trial hearing. So;

     February 14, 2019 starting at 2:00 pm, 1-hour allotted
Oral arguments for/against the City's motions to dismiss our claims for; i) Inverse Condemnation, which compensates us for excessive assessments on our properties and, ii) Injunctive Relief, which keeps the status quo until a settlement or trial verdict is reached. Arguments are likely to be more procedural than substantive and will frame these issues for hearing(s) and trial going forward.

     February 25, 2019 starting at 10:30 am, 1.5-hours allotted
Oral arguments for/against lifting the injunction. This is the hearing rescheduled from January. The City will need to prove that the law is on their side and that the City will suffer more harm than hundreds of residents in the districts for the injunction to be lifted.

We will not be asked to speak but, our presence is forceful so we should pack the courtroom to show our numbers are large and we have no intention of giving-up. In any case, we believe the City's motions for dismissal of our two claims are weak and we are now even better prepared for the hearing on the 25th, a hearing we have anticipated since originally scheduled in January. Both hearings will be held in the district courtroom at:

     Douglas County Judicial Center
     111 E 11th St
     Division 1, Judge Amy Hanley presiding

Separately, contributions are ramping-up but, legal fees will spike over the next few months. If you haven't done so, now is the time to pledge 10% of a typical assessment (pledges of any amount are needed but, $400 for those north of 6th St -OR- $40 for those south of 6th St are suggested). Also, we urgently need any and all contributions you can make toward your pledge in the next month. Without the financial support of you and your neighbors, this very REAL and very WINNABLE case will cease. A case that can; i) Substantially reduce and/or eliminate tax assessments for Queens Rd, ii) Make the City think twice about misusing laws to fund street and utility projects this way again whether in northwest Lawrence or any other part of our town, and iii) Force the City to impose laws and regulations uniformly on all residents within the City limits.

For many, it makes financial sense to spend a dime to save a dollar. Only indifference or lack of contributions can stop us. If you have questions or would like further information about the project or how to donate, please contact me. Thank you - Kurt


Update - 01/20/2019
Great News. On January 14, the Douglas County District Court assigned a case number and served a combined temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction on the City.  This means the court feels we have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of our case.

As expected, the City opted to present its case to lift the injunction and the court scheduled a hearing for January 24 at 10:30 am at the Douglas County Judicial Center at 111 E 11th St in Lawrence. Division 5s Judge Paula Martin will preside. ALL ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND and we expect the hearing to last 1-hour. Your continued presence is important. It not only gives all a chance to see the merits of our case first hand but also, lets both the City and its new Mayor as well as the court know hundreds of affected citizens continue to be engaged.

Many thanks to the 22 who have now contributed $4,923 and allowed us to proceed with the legal filing. We are still not willing to broadcast a legal strategy but, we are preparing a new legal defense funding plan. It includes a pledge of 10% of a typical assessment from each and every homeowner in the district along with contributions against your pledge that you can make in installments of your choice over the coming months. I am collecting pledges now and urgently need contributions to pay legal bills coming due in February.

Only money or indifference can keep us from succeeding. Please contact me if you would like me to email you a flyer with details. Thank you - Kurt


Update - 01/07/2019
We need 3 days to prepare pleadings and the petition required by the district court. We would like to file on January 11 but, can file no later than January 14. To do this, we urgently need continuing donations that reach our designated goal by the end of the week.

We have confirmed that both the law and court decisions on our side. Our analysis indicates our pleadings would shift no less than 25% of our assessments back in the lap of the city-at-large where they belong and have a reasonable chance of eliminating assessments altogether for many.

Money is the only thing that can keep us from reaching a successful conclusion for all. And, if the 205 homeowners in the Street District and 314 homeowners in the Signal District were to contribute just 10% of their currently estimated assessment, either up-front or over-time, we would have a war chest that would satisfy not only trial costs but also, the costs of appeals all the way to the State Supreme Court if required.

This is case is winnable in court and funding for even the worst case, appears to make financial sense. Thank you all for your continuing support and remember, like Thomas Edison said, - "The strength of our laws lie in the will of the people to defend them".


Update 12/03/2018

We're on our way.  23 of us have now pledged $2,180.  Please encourage your friends and neighbors to contribute so we can reach our goal in full.

We've changed "Why Donate" and, "Our Plan"  is now mostly deleted.   We are not seeking a TRO to delay the public hearing on the 4th but, have another plan in mind we do not wish to share.  


Update 11/25/2018

Why donate - Your contributions will help us stop the City of Lawrence, KS from misusing State laws that allow cities to create "improvement districts" to pay for needed public improvements.


How Much and When to Donate - 200 donations of $30.00 each seems like a reasonable and affordable way for us to regain a voice and to save us each $100s - $1,000s in unwarranted "special assessments". If we do not reach our $8,000 goal by January 3, 2019, we will not  move forward with our attorney and we will do our best to return unspent contributions accordingly.  To date, we have collected $1,380 from eight homeowners living in the districts boundaries  (12/03 update $2,180 from 23 who've pledged).


Background - On November 12, 2018, protest petitions were filed by 251 homeowners along Queens Road, with only 3 opposed. We collectively asked City Hall to reconsider its plan to improve our little-used back-road. A road used by maybe 500 vehicles per day that is unlikely to ever see anything approaching the 5,000 vehicles per day it could carry without widening.

In 2016, our local newspaper reported that homeowners might be expected to pay $1 million to repave Queens Road which motivated many to attend a public hearing in June 2017. This hearing was our first opportunity to learn City Hall really expected us to pay $5 million for what has now become a new traffic signal and a street 3X wider than our existing road at a cost 4X greater than a standard city street. A plan unexpectedly advanced without homeowner input to near completion containing new "specials" of $20,000/acre imposed equally on both existing homeowners and new commercial properties alike.

The 2017 hearing made it clear that neither a need nor technical justification supported the City's initiative to install a new signal or widen the existing street. In response, Commissioners' sought alternatives to reduce the project's cost and assess taxes in a more equitable manner. It also exposed weaknesses in an "at-will" project development process that has left some homeowners with 3 or more existing assessments for streets while neighboring homeowners have none. Similarly, it brought to light problems with "no protest agreements", executed with developers decades before and buried deep inside County records, the City believes commit long-time homeowners to pay for projects whether known to the public, realtors and title companies, or not.

On October 2, 2018, 18-months later, a new Commission approved the project and its districts without change and without addressing the above concerns. And, on December 4, our new Commission will conduct yet another public hearing to issue liens on our properties for special assessments that will firmly establish the project, the districts, and our assessments in stone.


Our Plan - The City's approach relies too much on ".... broad authorities granted by the State ...." with little regard for specific provisions or case law. An approach the City is using on Queens Road and intends to continue using on future initiatives throughout town. An approach the City has used before for a handful of projects sought by developers in recent years yet, has been rejected by courts for decades when used for similar projects protested by existing homeowners. 

(… prior plan elements deleted …)

Homeowners and residents throughout town believe residents along Queens Road are being steam-rolled because, after 18-months, our concerns have neither been considered nor addressed. Because of this, we believe a legal challenge is our only remaining choice to get the City to address our concerns. A legal challenge requiring us to present compelling evidence that the City has created legally "defective", and therefore unlawful, districts.


Closing - Without your generous help, the attorney can not be funded and each of the 400 to 500 property owners in the districts will be on their own to dispute their individual assessments. Disputes that will be difficult at best to make. Thank you for your consideration and any contribution you can make.