By Henry McClure
Topeka, Kansas
March 19, 2026
As a resident of Topeka, a licensed real estate broker, and someone who cares deeply about fair and transparent government, I recently received a response from Mayor Spencer Duncan regarding my concerns about the California Crossing Community Improvement District (CID) process. In his email, the mayor stated that I have "no standing" in the CID agreement because I do not represent the developer or property owner, am not working for them, and they are satisfied with the outcome and prefer no further involvement from me. He concluded that a meeting with me would be "inappropriate" as it could interfere with their work.
While I respect the mayor's position and the developer's desire to move forward without complications, this response misses a fundamental point: Citizens do not need "standing" in a private development agreement to speak out on matters of public process, transparency, and compliance with state law.
The Right — and Obligation — of Every Citizen
Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, every American has the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to speak freely on issues of public concern. This includes commenting on how our local government handles economic development tools like CIDs, which involve special sales taxes imposed on shoppers within district boundaries.
Kansas law reinforces this:
- The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA), K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq., declares it the policy of the state that meetings for governmental business be open to the public because "a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate." The Act promotes transparency and public participation, not restriction based on personal stake.
- Topeka's own Governing Body Rules & Procedure (Section 5.5) explicitly encourages public comment at every regular council meeting. Any resident can sign up to speak (notify the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. the day of the meeting or sign up in person before 6:00 p.m.), and each speaker gets up to 4 minutes. There is no requirement that you be a party to the project, own property in the district, or have a direct financial interest. Public comment is open to any citizen to address agenda items or raise general concerns about city processes.
The mayor's email does not — and cannot — strip away these rights. Declining a private meeting is one thing; implying that a citizen lacks the legitimacy to raise concerns publicly or advocate for better procedures is another. As a Topeka resident and developer who has worked within the system, I believe it's not just my right but my obligation to point out potential discrepancies when they affect how the law is applied to everyone.
The Specific Concern: A Clear Discrepancy in the California Crossing CID
To recap the facts (all from public records and my KORA requests):
- The owners' petition (filed August 2025 by California Crossing, LLC, notarized and signed) explicitly proposed a 1.9% CID sales tax in Section E.
- Yet Resolution 9745 (December 16, 2025) and Deputy City Manager Braxton Copley's testimony at the February 3, 2026 public hearing described the rate as 1.5% "as requested in the Petition."
- The council ultimately approved Ordinance No. 20633 at 1.5%.
- My KORA requests confirm no amended petition, no revised application, and no public documentation explaining or recording a rate change.
Under the Kansas Community Improvement District Act (K.S.A. 12-6a26 et seq., specifically 12-6a29), the owners' petition controls the proposed sales tax rate that must be noticed for the public hearing. The resolution must reflect what was actually petitioned. If the rate changed, it required the owner's consent via an amendment or revision — something the record does not show. This mismatch raises legitimate questions about the accuracy of notices and the uniform treatment of all developers filing CIDs in Topeka.
The developer/owner may be content (as the mayor noted), but that does not resolve the transparency issue for future projects. If one applicant can have its requested rate adjusted without clear public documentation, others might face the same — or different — handling. Consistency and openness benefit every developer, resident, and shopper in our city.
Moving Forward: What This Means for Topeka
I will continue exercising my rights as a citizen:
- Speaking during public comment at future council meetings.
- Submitting written concerns to the council and City Manager.
- Sharing facts publicly (including this post and supporting documents) so residents can form their own opinions.
Topeka's government works best when citizens are informed and engaged — not sidelined based on "standing." Mayor Duncan has said he values hearing different viewpoints to represent us better. I take him at his word and hope this dialogue leads to stronger processes that ensure every CID petition is handled transparently and uniformly.
If you're a Topeka resident concerned about fair government, I encourage you to attend council meetings, sign up for public comment, or contact your councilmember. Our voices matter — regardless of whether we have a "dog in the hunt" for a specific project.
Thank you for reading. Let's keep Topeka moving forward with integrity and openness.
Henry McClure
Topeka Resident, Licensed Real Estate Broker
@mcre1 on X
[Include links to petition pages, Resolution 9745 PDF, YouTube Short, and mayor's email if posting online]
Feel free to post this on your blog, Facebook, X, or wherever you share updates. If you'd like tweaks (e.g., shorter version, more emphasis on certain parts, or adding images/screenshots of the petition/resolution), just let me know. We're keeping the pressure on with facts.