The Star’s endorsement on whether to build a new municipal jail in Kansas City | Opinion

Sometimes, we as an editorial board give an endorsement with many reservations, acknowledging that our group decision was a close call. This is not one of those times: We urge you to vote yes on Question 1 on April 8.

Our endorsement in favor of the renewal of the public safety sales tax that would fund construction of a 250-bed rehabilitation and detention center for Kansas City, which does not have any jail now, or even a single local, operative cell to which a Kansas Citian in municipal custody can be sent, was a unanimous decision.

That’s not to say that this was an easy choice. There is a lot of misinformation out there about what the proposed facility next to the Jackson County Detention Center along U.S. Highway 40 would do and be. And there is passionate opposition from good people, many of them our frequent allies.

Each one of us on the board at some point was leaning toward a no vote, too, against a facility estimated to cost between $150 and $250 million for construction.

But what Kansas City is doing now is not working on any level. And we are convinced that a no vote would only continue the harms, not least to people who are in the legal system.

A no vote means we would continue to send all male detainees to the jail in Vernon County, where there have been serious allegations of abuse and racially-motivated mistreatment of Black men from Kansas City in particular. A yes vote does not end that untenable situation tomorrow, but it does end rather than extend it.

A yes vote is also the right answer for both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. More than 90% of domestic violence cases still are handled by our municipal court, including an absurd number of strangulation cases, and the fact that there is no local detention center means that too many abusers are arrested and sent right back home, without even a cooling-off period. Who does that help?

Our municipal courts offer a number of innovative, nationally recognized diversion programs, including for those arrested for abuse. One of those is an early intervention program for young offenders. But to take advantage of those programs, those arrested on DV charges have to stay out of worse trouble. We know that without intervention, domestic violence escalates, and that enforced separation saves lives and preserves families.

Treatment for mental health problems

Melesa Johnson, Jackson County’s impressive new prosecuting attorney, has said she wants to prosecute more of those domestic violence cases as felonies, and we have every confidence that she will do so. But the situation of the municipal court handling most of these cases does persist as of now. This has been the case since the 1980s, and the shift won’t happen overnight.

Right now, those inmates shuttled off to other counties get inadequate mental health services, and that’s a huge problem, too. Opponents of the proposed facility insist that they would not receive any even if the new facility does get built, but we don’t see it that way.

Twenty-five beds for the most seriously mentally ill will be set aside for municipal inmates in the new psychiatric facility to be built at the site of the old Belvidere Park at 1200 Independence Avenue and to be run by the Missouri Department of Mental Health and University Health.

Those with less serious mental health problems would we believe still get more and better treatment in the proposed facility than they get now.

Officials know very well that they cannot arrest their way out of mental health or any other problems, and that they will have to provide these services.

Those who suffer from addictions are not benefiting from some of the diversion programs already available in Kansas City because they instead just keep cycling in and out of jail, getting worse and doing worse, without ever having the right or any real intervention.

All of the specialty court programs are voluntary, and without any enforced period to allow for detox and then clearer decisions, how is that going to change?

Clearing up confusion about the jail

Let us bat down a few of the other arguments against the new facility.

• The ballot language is opaque and thus designed to deceive. And since it doesn’t even mention a jail, what guarantee do we have that one will even be built?

The ballot language is definitely opaque and does not mention a jail, but deceptive, we don’t think so. There were 16 public hearings on this proposed facility, and one cannot seriously both argue against a jail and foment fear that one will not be built.

The clunky and even impenetrable language of Question 1 very nearly mirrors that of the public safety sales tax approved in 2002 and renewed in 2010. If the language changed too much, it would be a new tax rather than a renewal. The tax, which brings in about $24 million a year, would expire in June of next year unless renewed by voters. In 2002 and 2010, the ballot language did not include what projects the tax would be spent on, either.

Here’s what it says, and if your eyes glaze over, we understand: “Shall the City of Kansas City continue to impose a sales tax authorized by Section 94.577 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for a period of 20 years at a rate of 1/4% to be used for police, emergency medical services and emergency management associated with administering public safety within Kansas City, including the construction, operation, and maintenance of capital improvements, which may include the retirement of debt under previously authorized indebtedness or to repay bonds not yet issued? This sales tax would continue the existing sales tax authorized by Section 94.577 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri and scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026.”

• Opponents of approving the quarter-cent public safety sales tax for another 20 years also argue that the construction of the new facility will rob revenue from 911 and the KCFD.

The counterargument, of course, is that if that were the case, the KCPD and KCFD would not be supporting renewal of the tax, but they are. Police Chief Stacey Graves has spoken publicly about the need for a jail.

• This only pays for construction on the jail.

It’s true that the renewal of this tax would only pay for construction, not operations and staffing, and that the city would still have to find the money for that. That would be the responsibility of our elected officials, and yes, they have let us down in the past. Oh boy have they.

In fact, perhaps the single most animating argument against a yes vote is how badly and how long our officials have bungled this issue. Maybe the county and city should have been able to come together on one facility, but they didn’t. And just as officials shouldn’t make public policy in pique, neither should voters.

Community resource center needed

Right now, the city has a reasonable plan that we believe deserves our support. Ask yourself whether you really believe, if it fails, that decision will put us any closer to improving the lives of any Kansas Citians. We do not.

The city also needs the community resource center that both proponents and opponents of the new facility are working on. It would be housed next door to the municipal courthouse and would offer all kinds of services available to everyone, not just those involved in the legal system.

The question is not whether to detain people or offer alternatives, but how best to do both, so as to have to incarcerate the fewest people possible.

Mass incarceration is a serious problem in our country, but this isn’t that, and some detentions really are necessary. Many people, and especially people of color, have good reason to fear and mistrust the justice system; of course they do. But there is also a long history of not keeping those communities safe. It’s not only Brookside experiencing quality-of-life crimes; on the contrary. Just look at the crimes that forced the businesses at 31st and Prospect to speak out.

Spend a day in any of our many municipal diversion courts, and see for yourself that their goal isn’t throwing away the key, but finding it.

This story was originally published April 3, 2025 at 5:09 AM.