Honor the history. Question the spending.

When I protested the tax, both mansions blocked me from their social media. That is my account of what happened. I bought BinghamWaggoner.com and VaileMansion.com because I will not let a block button end my objection to public spending.

These are publicly owned historic properties with government partners. I have a First Amendment right to object to the tax. I believe excluding critics from a government-operated public discussion because of their viewpoint is unacceptable. If these accounts exercise government authority, their moderation must respect constitutional limits.

The legal question turns on the actual authority and use of each account. A partnership alone does not decide it. In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court required authority to speak for government and a purported exercise of that authority. I want the City to disclose who operates these accounts, under what authority, and with what moderation policy. Read the Supreme Court’s opinion.

In my judgment, these plain .com names are easier to remember than BWestate.net and a stronger choice than leaving VaileMansion.com available. Management overlooked them; I bought them for independent criticism. The four links below let readers compare our arguments with the organizations’ own accounts. They do not imply a partnership or endorsement.

I opposed this tax. I still consider it a dubious response to a failure of stewardship. Loving history does not require endorsing every spending plan presented in its name.

The City says voters approved up to $19.9 million in general obligation bonds on November 3, 2026. The priority sites are Bingham-Waggoner Estate, Vaile Mansion, Truman Memorial Building, Old Fire Station One, and the 1827 Log Courthouse—the small log building I called a cabin in my speech. Read the City’s approval announcement.

That is four principal buildings and a log courthouse, but it is not necessarily only five structures: the authorized scope also includes facilities and grounds, and the estates have outbuildings. A serious critique must count those honestly. It must also ask whether every proposed improvement belongs in a preservation budget.

To me, $20 million sounds more like rebuilding money than the cost of keeping these places standing. That is my judgment about the scale, not a contractor’s estimate. If the City believes the price is justified, publish the measured quantities, competing bids, alternatives, and condition reports that demonstrate it.

“Save our history” is a slogan. It is not a scope of work. What precisely is about to be saved, replaced, added, upgraded, landscaped, designed, administered, or financed? Those are different purchases. They require different explanations.

The City’s FAQ describes an estimated $15.6 million in projects, plus contingency and issuance costs within the bond authorization. Repayment is through property taxes over as many as twenty years. Interest and the timing of bond sales matter; the authorization is not the final lifetime repayment bill. Read the financing FAQ.

My written speech used $20 million divided by roughly 50,000 households: about $400 per household before interest. That is an illustration of scale, not an equal household assessment or a tax bill. Property taxes depend on assessed values, property classifications, timing, and financing. The City’s illustrative annual residential estimate is $35.43 for a $200,000 property, with a higher first year possible. Renters and customers can also bear costs when property owners pass expenses along, although the amount of any pass-through varies.

Earlier proposed allocations and later tentative figures differ. The Historical Society’s October account and KSHB’s post-election reporting of tentative allocations describe different estimates. That calls for a dated reconciliation, not a claim that one old estimate is a final contract. Publish a version history for the budget and explain every change. A contingency is a reserve, not permission to spend without an account.

The bond is for capital work, not routine salaries and supplies. The City also promises a twenty-year business plan. A plan has value only if it identifies future maintenance obligations, assigns responsibility, and shows how they will be funded after the campaign is over.

The City’s own July 2026 resolution acknowledges significant deferred maintenance and insufficient General Fund resources. These are City-owned properties. The City intended to retain the mansions while exploring preservation and management options. Read the City’s ownership and maintenance statement.

I call a backlog of this scale government mismanagement. That is my assessment of public stewardship. It does not establish that every volunteer, employee, or current official caused every defect. It does mean the public owner must explain the inspections, warnings, maintenance budgets, deferrals, and decisions that brought us here.

Taxpayers struggling to repair their own roofs should not be guilted into treating every municipal request as a test of their love for history. Keeping rain out, maintaining drainage, and repairing historic materials are recurring responsibilities. If earlier public spending did not meet those responsibilities, disclose why.

Winning a bond vote does not erase that history. Before another round of deterioration becomes another tax campaign, publish an annual maintenance schedule, an identified responsible officer, and measurable standards for each property.

My objection is to treating those words as interchangeable. The National Park Service identifies four treatments, each with a different purpose. Read the NPS treatment framework.

Preservation

Retain historic fabric and character through protection, maintenance, stabilization, and repair.

Rehabilitation

Allow a compatible use through repairs and appropriate alterations while retaining significant historic features.

Restoration

Represent a particular period in a property’s history, using evidence to guide what is retained, removed, or recovered.

Reconstruction

Re-create a vanished historic resource.

“Renovation” is not one of those four formal treatment categories. A makeover is not automatically a restoration because its brochure contains the word “historic.” Each project should name its treatment, the evidence supporting it, and the original material that will survive.

Timely preservation can prevent expensive replacement. That is the economic argument for maintaining the roofs, windows, masonry, and drainage before they fail. It is not a universal claim that every preservation job costs less than every renovation: condition, specialist labor, safety requirements, accessibility, and scope affect the price. The City must price the alternatives rather than rely on labels.

I favor a practical order: stabilize immediate threats, stop water, repair before replacing, protect significant fabric, and phase discretionary improvements. NPS preservation guidance emphasizes maintenance and repair and limits extensive replacement. Read the preservation standards.

I find the scale of the request, the fervor of the campaign, the fancy giveaway books I describe, and the anger directed at objections deeply troubling. They make me suspicious. They do not answer a single question about a roof, an invoice, or a contractor’s profit.

Let me be precise: campaign intensity, glossy books, and hostility to critics do not establish that anyone is pocketing public money. I have not established theft, fraud, or a kickback. My demand is for the disclosures that let residents test the spending instead of being told to trust a campaign.

The public campaign offered yard signs, endorsements, and tax estimates. Those are political advocacy, not independent verification of construction costs. Read the campaign’s own presentation.

1. Publish the full estimates. Quantities, unit costs, professional fees, contingencies, alternatives, and the assumptions behind each.
2. Identify who benefits. Contractors, subcontractors, owners, consultants, and disclosed conflicts of interest.
3. Open the procurement record. Bid notices, proposals, evaluation criteria, awards, and reasons for exceptions.
4. Track the changes. Every change order, contingency draw, invoice, payment, and authorized signature.
5. Account for promotion. Who paid for campaign books, printing, distribution, events, and advertising? Separate private campaign money from public funds.
6. Require independent review. Compare completed work and preserved historic fabric against what taxpayers actually purchased.

These are demands for safeguards against waste, fraud, and corruption. They are not a finding that a particular person committed a crime. The larger the public bill, the less acceptable secrecy becomes.

The Bingham-Waggoner record

A house associated with dissent should withstand scrutiny.

George Caleb Bingham challenged government through art. His association with this property makes an independent critic's demand for answers especially fitting. Respect for the estate should include respect for residents who question the bill.

The estate describes a 26-room mansion on more than 19 acres, with a history connected to Bingham, the Waggoner family, and the western trails. Its account places Bingham's studio here and connects it with his response to General Order No. 11. The site includes grounds and other structures, so honest budgeting must identify the work on each. Estate overview · Estate history

The maintenance record deserves daylight.

The City's April 2024 tourism report recorded work toward replacing the stable roof and repairs to rotted soffits and fascia at Bingham-Waggoner. Those entries document maintenance work, not an absence of work. They also invite an obvious question: how did those projects fit into the larger condition assessment and long-term repair plan? Read the City report, historic-sites section.

Publish the inspection reports, work orders, bids, completion dates, warranties, and follow-up findings. Show whether the repairs solved the underlying problems. Explain which conditions remained, what caused them, and why they were not addressed sooner. A photographed ribbon cutting cannot answer those questions; records can.

The City and private citizens acquired the estate together in 1979. Decades of public ownership call for an account of decades of stewardship. The City acknowledged significant deferred maintenance in its July 2026 discussion of these historic properties. Residents deserve to know which failures of planning, funding, or execution created today's backlog. City acknowledgment.

My connection reaches back decades.

Decades ago, Bingham-Waggoner displayed my rare books in a lengthy museum exhibition. That is my recollection of a period when, in my judgment, the institution was better managed. My criticism comes with an interest in preserving and sharing history, not indifference to it. The exhibition's dates and archival documentation have not yet been independently confirmed for this site.

I want cultural institutions to make their collections meaningful and their management accountable. Those purposes reinforce each other. Asking how a public estate is maintained is part of caring about what it holds and what future visitors will experience.

Allocate first. Explain fully. Report continuously.

The five-site bond is not a single building repair. That makes transparent allocations essential. For this estate, separate the mansion, stable, carriage house, grounds, collections-related work, professional services, and contingency. State what work is preservation, what changes a building's use or appearance, and why each choice is necessary.

Put contract awards, competing bids, conflicts disclosures, invoices, and change orders where any resident can read them. Track the original budget against the final cost. Require explanations when a project expands. Public trust should rest on verifiable records, not enthusiasm for the campaign.

The City says voters approved the $19.9 million bond on November 3, 2026. My objection to its scale and the management behind it does not disappear with the vote. Oversight belongs to critics as well as supporters. City approval announcement.

Protect the estate. Open the books. Answer the critics. Public ownership carries public obligations.

My November 2, 2026 written remarks challenged the tax, the five properties’ historical claims, the burden on ordinary residents, and the government’s record of care. The complete original is available here, including the passages for which this site supplies historical or financial context.

Read the full written speech →

Download the original speech as text · Read my original Facebook posts

I regard my own house as the better Independence, Missouri destination for Mormons interested in Mormon history and rare books. That is my personal judgment as its owner and collector. It offers a different experience from touring a Gilded Age mansion.

Visits are by appointment or invitation. For details, visit Mormon.house →.