Following is an exchange of email among Amy Rush, a neighbor fighting the development of a polluting autobody paintshop right behind her backyard; Neil Sader, an Overland Park City Council Member; and Trenton Nauser, M.D., an expert in the medical effects of pollution.

Amy is an attorney by profession.

The exchange began when Neil Sader made a condescending reply to an email from a resident in Regency by the Lake, the subdivision that will be exposed to the carcinogenic chemicals from the autobody paintshop. The resident turned the email over to Amy, who responded with some acerbity to Sader's patronizing remarks. During the course of the emails, Amy took the opportunity to point out Sader's lack of understanding of the issues; the many errors of fact in his emails; the refusal of the City to require or the company to install up to date filters because they were too expensive.

Amy's opinions about Sader are widely held among the community of neighborhood concerned citizens who have attempted to participate in the management of development in Overland Park.

The seven letters in the exchange are in chronological order:

1. Neil Sader Letter 1 in which he makes unsupported and erroneous assertions about health effects, character of the location, property values, etc.
2. Amy Rush Letter 1 in which she points out Sader's errors and lack of expertise.
3. Neil Sader Letter 2 in which he accuses Amy of not keeping an open mind
4. Amy Rush Letter 2 in which she points out her attempts to work with the developer and his refusal to install proper filters
5. Neil Sader Letter 3 in which he writes more patronizing remarks about Amy needing to "study up"
6. Amy Rush Letter 3 in which she points out Sader never bothered to attend the Planning Commission meeting where the issues were discussed.
7. Trenton D. Nauser, MD, letter supporting Amy Rush's statements

Neil Sader Letter 1

[Resident of Regency by the Lake]:

I appreciate your inquiry about the body shop. As usual in these types of matters, the explanation is long. I would urge you to be fully informed before arriving at a conclusion yourself.

The property involved has long been zoned for industrial uses . . . for years. The location is at a major intersection. This type of zoning (originally put in place by the County) seems appropriate for this location according to our planning professionals. Please keep in mind that along Metcalf in my part of the city, there are at least 6 such body shops/collision centers which are all located far closer to residences than this one will be. My constituents have lived within feet of these centers for years, with no noticeable side effects. The children have grown up fine with no special health problems. I believe if you took the time to review the research objectively, you would agree that the dangers complained about are remote, at best. The dangers from one cigarette are far greater than the exposure to the public from this facility.

Businesses of all types have to be allowed somewhere in a city of our size. Industrial uses are generally somewhat removed from residences. This type of use is actually far better and less intrusive than other industrial uses which could have been proposed. Would it have been better to have located it further from homes . . . sure. Please keep in mind that along Metcalf in my part of the city, there are at least 6 such body shops/collision centers which are all located far closer to residences than this one will be. My constituents have lived within feet of these centers for years, with no noticeable side effects. The children have grown up fine with no special health problems.

I also disagree with you that your home values will be hurt. I have heard this argument often in regard to zoning decisions over the years. It has been used to fight Menorah Hospital, Target, the Bowling Alley, and the Home Depot on 135th St. To date, there is no part of town (to my knowledge) where residential values have ever decreased . . .because of zoning decisions or any other reason. Assertions to the contrary are inaccurate and wrong.

I would be glad to discuss this further with you. Please feel free to call me at home or at the office number listed below. I hope this explanation is helpful.

Neil Sader
Councilmember, Ward 2
816-561-1818 - office
913-599-1441 - home

Amy Rush, Letter 1

Neil-

I am responding to an email you sent [resident of Regency by the Lake] - she passed it on to me, and I asked her if I could respond to you - seeing that I am truly "fully informed" about the legal issues, as well as, the politics and games that are being played with regard to this issue. You ought to be careful with the tone of your emails - just because we don't live in your ward does not mean we don't know people in your ward - in fact, that is were I grew up and my parents, as well as, a lot of friends still live there - you can still be voted out - you still get paid with our tax money.

With all due respect you are wrong - the location is not at a major intersection - in fact, it is not even close to a major intersection - it is nestled in between homes and duplexes - maybe you should actually take a drive out there before explaining to us that WE are not FULLY INFORMED.

Moreover, the property has NEVER been used as a commercial site - regardless of its zoning. Furthermore, the City Council, including yourself, were negligent when they failed to even make a passing comment about the C-3J lot when allowing Andrew Schlagel to convince you to rezone what is now Regency by the Lake to a residential area. At that time, the Planning Staff and Mr. Schlagel misrepresented to the City Council that the adjoining 14 acres were zoned CP-1. I know this to be true because we have the City Council Minutes from the meeting that Regency's land was rezoned R1-A. It appears that both Mr. Schlagel and the Staff, without adequately researching the surrounding zoning, represented to the Council that the 14 acres was CP-1 and provided a map to demonstrate that point - I also have the map. The Staff, Council and Mr. Schlagel NEVER discussed the remaining 6.77 acres where Joe's barn sits - which is the CP-3J lot - seems odd.

Your assertion that "This type of zoning (originally put in place by the County) seems appropriate for this location according to our planning professionals." Is also way off mark. In fact, both Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lindenblad expressed concern when we met with them and blamed the City Council, again including yourself, for agreeing to Resolution 1896 -that would be the annexation resolution - because it did not allow the Staff to master plan the area. Both gentlemen are concerned that OP and its governing bodies have such baited breath to annex property that they are acting negligently by not considering consequences.

Next you state, "Please keep in mind that along Metcalf in my part of the city, there are at least 6 such body shops/collision centers which are all located far closer to residences than this one will be. My constituents have lived within feet of these centers for years, with no noticeable side effects. The children have grown up fine with no special health problems."

Neil, we are all intelligent, professional people. You have not polled your constituents to determine if their children grew up with "no noticeable side effects" - God forbid if you did - OP would be looking at a huge lawsuit and you know it. You should become more fully informed and check out how many of those people lived there for a prolonged period of time, how much toxins were emitted, what types, and what the effects were for people that were exposed for prolonged periods of time.

Regardless, of these results your argument does not hold water.

First, because those facilities were built in the late 70's (I know this because they were in full operation when I moved here in 1981) and the fact that they were built so long ago and no one study the effects of those facilities back then - does mean that OP should continue to make these zoning mistakes now. You state that "I also do not believe there is any significant danger posed by this facility." "The dangers from one cigarette are far greater than the exposure to the public from this facility." I would love to see your qualifications - are you an Industrial Hygienist?, a Respiratory Therapist? (our Respiratory Therapist would love your comment about the cigarette - I'll have him respond to your directly - it would make a good article or new story don't you think - showing how uniformed the President of our City Council is?), an MD?, and an OBGYN? - because those are the people who have done PRO BONO studies for us about the effects of this facility - not an attorney that also happens to sit on the OP City Council. We have 4 doctors - who actually are fully informed and actually study the effects of these toxins on people that are telling the governing bodies of this cities that the City, you included, are placing the safety, health and general welfare of the City's residents in harms way. Maybe you and the Governing Bodies of this City should become more fully informed - it should not be very hard - since we, the fully informed residents, have done the work for you over the past six months.

Finally, the "autobody shops" along Metcalf between 75th and 83rd street on not comparable to Mr. Balderston's 20,000 sq. foot stand alone facility that will service 3 dealerships - including the World's largest dealership - the one the City Council, including you, approved at 135th Street and 69 Highway. The shops you like to hang your hat have less square footage and service far, far fewer cars and are of no precedential value for your argument.

I wonder why the City Council didn't force Mr. Balderston to use part of the 90,000 sq. ft. Payless building for his autobody shop? More tax money when you have two facilities? Tell me this, why was he not forced to pay for improvements to Highway 69 -another break for Mr. Balderston? You can't really expect us to believe that the World's largest Ford Dealership (according to a press release sent by Mr. Balderston's agents to Channel 41) is not going to increase the traffic on 69 Highway and 135th Street. If you suggest the same, then YOU are the one who is not fully informed.

Neil, I'll let you know when I sell my house, if the value goes down - then the City can reimburse me for the loss that I take because of the City's gross negligence in failing to consider the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of RBL, LionsGate, Shadowbrook, Timbers Edge, the Blue Valley duplexes, and all of the children that attend the BlueValley Lakewood schools.

I have lived in this City for 22 years and am shocked at the behavior of the governing bodies - it is the City Council and the Planning Commission that are not Fully Informed - and not from any effort on our part to try to inform all of you. I could not believe it when Charles Hunter's first comments at the Planning Commission Meeting on June 10, 2002 were that the Commission hardly ever worked with the County regulations and so it would be hard decision - well, considering they knew they would have to consider the Regulations 6 weeks before the June 10th hearing - don't you think these people should have read the document they were to apply in making their decision - well they had not - heck two of the Commissioners were falling asleep during the presentations? Seems only logical to me that they would have read the Regulations and the UDO, I seriously don't think any of them have ever read any of the rules and regulations that they are charged to apply during those Commission Meetings - they are truly not "fully informed." Well, I have read the Regulations, OP's UDO, Resolution 1896 and studies on the effects of these toxins and I feel very comfortable telling you that you are WRONG.

Now you are FULLY informed.

Amy Rush

Neil Sader Letter 2 Amy:

Contrary to your assertions when we first met, you did not keep an open mind (and probably never had one) on this issue. However, I do know where you stand and respect the time and effort you have expended. Unfortunately, we will not agree on this subject.

Neil S. Sader
Sader & Garvin LLC
4739 Belleview Ave., Suite #300
Kansas City, Missouri 64112-1364
816-561-1818
816-561-0818 (fax)

Amy Rush Letter 2

Neil-

Contrary to your assertions, I did keep an open mind.

In fact, I met with the developer's (Bob Balderston's) agents and business partners at least four times - over 8 hours discussing options that would be best for everyone. I have also met with numerous city officials to determine the facts. I have spent the last 6 months doing all of this because the City has failed to research the facts itself. We have worked with the developer with regards to different options on location for the facility - and every time the City - council or staff has rejected the idea - even in an industrial area Neil. I bet you didn't know that.

We have talked with the developer about using charcoal filters and have been shot down - too expensive. Well, those are the filters that would make the facility neighbor friendly according to the experts - even the School Board's experts said that.

We have study the effects of the facility - something you have not done - so how can you now tell me that I have not kept an open mind? I am the one who has done research on the facility - you haven't even done that, and until you do you should draw no conclusions.

I am not interested in your respect, I am interested in the Governing Bodies of Overland Park, upholding their duty to protect the safety, health and general welfare of their residents and children.

You can bet OP will not be voted as a "neighborhood friendly city" next year - when your own residents air their views on this situation to the people who bestowed that honor on the City last year.

Neil Sader Letter 3

You should study up and become informed on the zoning and development approval process. It is complicated, has many nuances, and has room for subjectivity. Further, I disagree with your assertions that I did not take the time to study the facts. You are incorrect . . . I just disagreed with your conclusions.

By the way, Carl Gerlach is the Council President at this time. We elect a new President each May.

Neil S. Sader
Sader & Garvin LLC
4739 Belleview Ave., Suite #300
Kansas City, Missouri 64112-1364
816-561-1818
816-561-0818 (fax) nsader@sadergarvin.com

Amy Rush Letter 3

I am not inclined to respond to your comments any further as they are not informative, nor are they productive.

I will, however, let you know that I am knowledgeable about how the zoning and development approval process work. I learned that on my own - as opposed to the book the City of Overland Park put together for developers to use - at the expense of tax payers - of which I have a copy.

If you had study the facts, Neil, you would not have made so many errors in your comments to [the resident of Regency by the Lake]. Moreover, you would have known that the Commission completely ignored the "scientific studies" that were presented to them. But, of course, you didn't attend the Commission meeting, and you did not read the transcript.

Letter from Trenton D. Nauser, MD

Dear Sir,

I have been carbon copied the email exchanges between you, Ms Rush and [our neighbor in Regency by the Lake]. I found your comments "The dangers of one cigarette are far greater than the exposure to the public from this facility" and "I believe if you took the time to review the research objectively" to be both inflammatory and insulting.

I and many others have reviewed the data objectively. I am not aware of the dangers of ONE cigarette but am cognizant of the potential health effects of pollution. Further, as a Diplomate in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, and Critical Care Medicine from the American Board of Internal Medicine, I am qualified to make this statement.

Sincerely,
Trenton D. Nauser, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine