Wichita Century II court fight over. Democracy lost. | Opinion

In its final act of 2022, the Kansas Court of Appeals last week upheld whatever the opposite of democracy is.

A three-judge panel sided with Wichita City Hall in a ruling that struck down an initiative petition aimed at protecting the Century II Convention and Performing Arts Center, the former Central Library and other historic buildings from being torn down if the public doesn’t want them torn down.

The initiative would have required a public vote on demolition or major changes to “historically important or architecturally significant” buildings in town.

But you’ll never get to vote on that, despite supporters collecting the signatures of more than 17,000 registered Wichita voters, way more than would ostensibly be needed to put an initiative on the ballot.

The appeals court upheld a district judge’s decision that the initiative ordinance would be “administrative,” rather than “legislative.”

“Ordinances tend to be administrative in nature when they require particularized knowledge in matters of city operations, associated space requirements, public safety, and regulatory issues, as well as an intimate appreciation of the city’s fiscal affairs,” the court wrote in its decision.

What that essentially means is, in the eyes of the law, you’re simply not informed enough or smart enough to decide which public buildings should be demolished and which should be kept.

Perhaps the voting public does lack “particularized knowledge in matters of city operations.”

You know what else Wichita voters lack? Wealthy developers and campaign contributors tugging at their sleeve every five minutes asking to turn public property over to private, for-profit businesses.

The proposed initiative spun out of the effort by downtown business interests and city and county government to tear down Century II and replace it with the $1 billion-plus Riverfront Legacy Master Plan. It would have included new convention and performing arts facilities, nominally owned by the public, surrounded by private businesses.

It spawned a grassroots movement to save Century II, where volunteers spent six months collecting signatures to put preservation of historic buildings to a public vote. That effort is over. The Save Century II group announced this week that it won’t try to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The outcome exposes the process for citizen-led initiatives as the bad joke it is.

There’s no initiative process at all at the state level, only the Legislature can put a question on the ballot. Local initiatives are theoretically allowed, but it’s more mirage than reality.

When Wichita citizens voted in 2015 to turn down the heat on marijuana prosecutions in city court, the state Supreme Court struck it down on a technicality that was basically a stapling error when the petitions were filed — even though petition advocates had been assured by all the relevant government officials that they had complied with all requirements.

So much for the “particularized knowledge” of local officials, which the courts seem to hold in such high esteem.

Century II is safe for now. City officials finally got the message that the people like the round, blue-roofed performing arts building. They’re now putting their “particularized knowledge” to better use on fixing it up and renovating or replacing the attached Bob Brown Expo Hall, a tilt-up concrete box of no historical or architectural significance whatsoever.

But that could easily change in the next election, if incoming council members form another majority that favors well-connected developers and business interests over the people, like the council we used to have.

Meanwhile, the state Legislature should take a long, hard look at the initiative process and reconstitute it so it actually works.

A good start would be to eliminate the legalese and write a clear-language law that says step-by-step what concerned citizens have to do to put an initiative on the ballot.

Lawmakers pridefully call themselves “the branch of government closest to the people.”

Maybe they can show more respect for the intelligence of the voting public than the courts do.