Amy Rush, Letter 1
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
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.
Neil Sader Letter 2
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
Amy Rush Letter 2
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
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
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
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.
Trenton D. Nauser, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine