KANSAS CITY, Mo. | July 28, 2026 — Local real estate agent and housing advocate Stacey Johnson-Cosby,
President of the KC Regional Housing Alliance, is calling on the Kansas City Council to reconsider Ordinance No. 260667 before any taxpayer funds are spent and to return the proposal to the City’s normal legislative process, including committee review and a public hearing.
On July 23, 2026, the City Council passed an emergency one-day ordinance appropriating up to $500,000 from the taxpayer funded Housing Trust Fund to inspect and perform emergency work at the privately owned apartment buildings at 132, 135, and 148 N. Lawn Avenue in the Indian Mound neighborhood. The ordinance was introduced from the floor, amended, and passed the same day, a rare procedural move — after the Council first voted to waive the City Charter requirement that ordinances be read on three separate days to allow for public input and stakeholder responses.
Councilman Johnathan Duncan sponsored the controversial measure. The property is owned by Wiser KC LLC, through owner Yisroel Levovitz, an out-of-state landlord whom reporting places in Chicago and who has been the subject of repeated code violations and prolonged enforcement activity. Media reports and tenants have referred to the owner as a “slumlord.”
Several of the concerns Johnson-Cosby is raising were also raised inside the chamber. Councilman Kevin O’Neill, who supported the measure, objected to same-day adoption and to appropriating the money without a cost breakdown or assurance the City would recover it at sale and the precedent established. The City Manager raised concerns about implementation, including that the City had no contractors on standby, the 48-hour timeline, the first-time use of a City Code provision adopted in 1986, and the lack of
an appeals process to resolve a dispute if the owner contests the assessed cost. Councilman Darrell Curls asked how the Housing Trust Fund would be made whole.
As a friendly amendment, the Council added “up to” before $500,000 and directed the City Manager to report back with a breakdown of how the money is spent — after the vote. Also, the suggestion of using the funds for rental assistance instead of the city improving this private property was raised but didn’t alter the vote. Mayor Lucas raised his concern that even the $86,400 allocation 2 years prior should have gone through the regular council process.The ordinance also directs the City Manager to inspect the properties within two days — after passage — meaning the up-to-$500,000 appropriation was approved before any inspection had defined the scope of repairs. There was no due diligence, bid process or public taxpayer input…
Information in this document is based on City records, public meeting materials, property records, official statements, and published media reports.
The city says it intends to recover its costs through a special tax assessment (a lien) if the owner ever sells the property: But the owner purchased the buildings in 2023 for about $2.4 million and, according to loan records cited by the tenant union, completed a 2025 cash-out refinance to a $3.7 million loan — pulling out roughly $1.7 million – and is now marketing the complex for sale. No due diligence, appraisal, or proof that the property is not over-leveraged – there is no guarantee that any funds can ever
be recovered. If the property is never sold, the city and taxpayers will be on the hook as landlords for his building forever. Less than 2 weeks before allocating these funds, City staff pledged to investigate reclaiming $86,400 in rental-assistance funds paid directly to the owner over the previous 2 years, as the building progressively worsened while they paid him monthly with no oversight.
Now two weeks later, the city council hastily voted on Thursday to invest half a million dollars in taxpayer money in buildings that accumulated multiple nuisance code violations (reportedly over 40) over the two years it subsidized rent for only eight tenants. Johnson-Cosby questions whether taxpayers will realistically be repaid, and whether that risk should have been approved when neither this decision nor the earlier subsidy received the City’s regular process or public review.
“The tenants deserve safe housing. No one disputes that,” Johnson-Cosby said. “My concern is the process. Before the City spends close to $600,000 in taxpayer dollars on privately owned property held by a negligent, non-responsive, out-of- state landlord, the public deserves committee review, public hearings, and complete transparency. I’m asking the Council to reconsider this ordinance before any money is spent to bail out this out-of-state ‘slumlord’ and bring it back through the normal legislative process. If this is truly the right decision, it should withstand public scrutiny.”
Johnson-Cosby also questioned the timing, as Kansas City voters prepare to decide a $100 million general obligation bond for the Housing Trust Fund on the August 4, 2026 ballot.
“Voters are being asked to entrust City Hall with significantly more taxpayer money. Before asking for that confidence, the city should demonstrate that major spending decisions are transparent, carefully vetted, and accountable to the public,” she said. “Public officials have said that this approach will be used to bail out other non-code-compliant privately owned rental properties across the city. If this is the first ever use of a 1986 code provision in this manner, taxpayers deserve to know what objective criteria will govern when the City uses this authority over and over again.”
Citing the decision as unfair to actual local property owners who may need help with repairs or other renters who may need rental assistance, Johnson-Cosby is asking the Council to reconsider Ordinance 260667 before any more funds are spent and to return it to the City’s normal committee process, where the public can review the proposal, ask questions, and testify before a final vote.
Media Contact:
Stacey Johnson-Cosby
KC Regional Housing Alliance, President
ReeceNichols Real Estate, Agent
816-591-5921 | StaceyKCAgent@gmail.com
A reporter’s reference. Verified facts are stated plainly; claims made by tenants, the City, or other parties are attributed to those parties.
Q: In one sentence, what happened?
On July 23, 2026, the Kansas City Council passed an emergency ordinance — introduced from the floor, amended, and approved the same day — appropriating up to $500,000 from the Housing Trust Fund for emergency work on a privately owned apartment complex, with the City intending to recover its costs from the owner through a special tax assessment.
Q: What is Ordinance No. 260667?
An emergency measure sponsored by Councilman Johnathan Duncan that appropriates up to $500,000 from the Housing Trust Fund (Fund No. 2490); directs the City Manager to inspect 132, 135, and 148 N. Lawn within two days; directs creation of a landlord-regulation task force within 60 days; and directs the City to explore establishing a fund for emergency repairs. The ordinance carries an accelerated effective date.
Q: How did the Council vote?
11–1. Councilman Nathan Willett cast the only “no” vote on final passage. Councilwoman Melissa Robinson participated in at least part of the discussion, raised the question of relocation, but did not vote. Before taking up the item, the Council voted to waive the Charter requirement that ordinances be read on three separate days.
Q: On what basis was the “up to $500,000” set — were there bids or due diligence?
This was questioned during the vote itself. The ordinance appropriates the money while directing the City Manager to inspect the properties within two days after passage — so the inspection to determine needed repairs had not occurred. Councilman Kevin O’Neill objected to appropriating without a cost breakdown; the City Manager noted the city had no contractors on standby and no dispute-resolution process. As a friendly amendment, the Council added “up to” and required the City Manager to report a
spending breakdown — after the vote rather than before it.
Q: Who owns the property?
Yisroel Levovitz, who owns the complex through Wiser KC LLC. He is an out-of-state owner who reports places in Chicago. Per the City and reporters, he has been unreachable; he has listed the complex for sale.
Q: What conditions have been reported?
Local reporting and the tenant union describe years of problems: a month-plus power outage leaving units without air conditioning in extreme heat, raw sewage in basements, rodent and insect infestations, dangerous electrical and furnace equipment, and unsecured entrances. Nine households have been displaced; 20–25 people remain.
Q: Hasn’t the City already been paying for this property?
Yes. Beginning in 2023, the City subsidized rent for eight households at 135 N. Lawn — $450 per unit per month, up to $86,400 total (KCTV5) in exchange for the owner maintaining the property and completing repairs. Tenants say the repairs never came.
The subsidy ran for two years and expired in early 2026. During Council debate, Mayor Quinton Lucas stated that the 2023 agreement should have been approved by ordinance rather than handled administratively. The unanswered question: if the City knew, through years of complaints, that the property was unsafe, why did it keep paying rent subsidies rather than relocating those
residents to safe housing at the time? Then, why repeat a non-transparent process with no taxpayer input again with half a million dollars this time?
Q: Didn’t the City just say it wanted its money back from this owner?
Yes, and that is the contradiction. In the same window in July 2026, City staff pledged to investigate reclaiming the $86,400 previously paid to the owner (Spectrum News), while the Council appropriated up to $500,000 more for work on that same owner’s property. The city says it will recover the new money through a lien yet is unsure it can recover the $86,400 it already paid him. If the property doesn’t sell or have enough equity, the money may never be recovered.
Q: Can the City actually recover the money?
That question deserves the City’s math, in public — and Council members asked it. Councilman Darrell Curls asked how the Housing Trust Fund would be made whole. The owner bought the buildings in 2023 for about $2.4 million and, per loan records cited by the tenant union, completed a 2025 cash-out refinance to a $3.7 million loan, pulling out $1.7 million (Northeast News).
He is now selling. Is there enough equity in this highly leveraged property? Before committing funds, the City should disclose the property’s current listed price; whether its special tax assessment has legal priority over the existing $3.7 million mortgage; and, after that debt and clos ing costs, whether enough equity exists to repay the expenditure. If not, the money functions as a
Q: Wouldn’t it be cheaper to relocate the families?
The city should show the comparison. At the $3,000-per-household relocation figure the tenants negotiated with the owner, relocating even all of the 29 union households total about $87,000 — far below $500,000. When Councilwoman Robinson raised relocation, Councilman Duncan responded that tenants do not want to be relocated and that the electrical and sewage problems can be repaired in place. Tenant preference is legitimate and belongs in the conversation — but it is not a cost analysis, and it
does not resolve whether up to $500,000 is recoverable. Renters in non-code-compliant units should be relocated when the property is closed down. No one should live in a home that is unhealthy, unsanitary, or unsafe. If the owner does not bring the property into compliance, the code should be enforced so that renters are not living in squalid conditions in the hope that they will finally comply and make the repairs. The responsibility is for the owners to make, not the city’s or taxpayers.
Q: Isn’t Olive Park Village chronic fire story a similar recent situation?
It is a fair comparison. Olive Park Village residents had already been relocated after HUD ended its contract with owner Millennia, so the City’s role there was securing and demolishing an empty complex — at the owner’s expense, consistent with the City’s dangerous buildings policy. North Lawn is occupied, so repairing in place keeps families housed. But that is exactly the kind of policy judgment that warrants an open hearing. The question is not whether helping tenants is right — it is why a half-million-
dollar decision skipped the public process the City uses for far smaller matters and directly benefits a non-responsive, negligent out-of-state landlord. The city clearly said in this case that it is property owners’ financial responsibility to comply with the city codes.
Information in this document is based on City records, public meeting materials, property records, official statements, and published media reports.
Q: Why was this handled as a same-day emergency?
The conditions did not appear overnight; the City has been involved since 2023, and complaints have been continuous. The City’s rationale is life safety — no power, active sewage, elderly residents, and extreme heat forecast. That is a serious concern. But the ordinance was introduced from the floor, amended, and passed in one session with a Charter waiver, no committee hearing, and
no public testimony. If the danger justified emergency procedures and up to $500,000 in a single afternoon, why were residents left in those conditions for two years first — and if the matter allowed for a report-back on spending afterward, why not allow public review beforehand?
Q: What is Stacey Johnson-Cosby asking for?
Three things: reconsider Ordinance 260667 before any funds are spent; return it to the normal committee process with a public hearing; and let residents and stakeholders testify before a final vote. If the decision is right, it will withstand public scrutiny.
Questions Raised During Council Deliberations
Several concerns raised by Council members and City staff during the July 23 debate overlap with questions taxpayers may reasonably ask of the 11 who voted for this ordinance. They are grouped below.
Process
- Why was the ordinance introduced and passed on the same day when the property had not been code compliant for 2 years?
- Why was the Charter requirement for three readings waived?
- Why was the proposal not first considered through the regular committee process with public review and testimony?
- What information would have been available with additional public review?
Financial oversight
- How was the “up to $500,000” amount determined?
- Was a written repair estimate available before the vote to determine the $500,000 allocation?
- Were contractor estimates obtained? Was an engineering assessment completed? Which contractors will be awarded the contracts on this $500,000 allocation? And what oversight will be done to ensure compliance this time after paying the landlord for 2 years with none?
- What documentation supported the amount appropriated?
- Was a lawyer consulted about the legality of the process and lack of public input because of the hasty & rushed process of ordinance introduction and passage?
- Why was a post-appropriation spending report required instead of providing that information before the vote?
Recovery of public funds
- What analysis supports the expectation that taxpayer funds will be recovered? What is the history or record of such recovery repayments?
- Was a title search completed? Was an appraisal obtained? Were existing liens reviewed? Is there enough equity to ensure funds may be available for repayment upon a sale?
- Where would the City’s assessment fall in lien priority?
- What is the estimated likelihood of full reimbursement if the property is never sold?
- Was a financial analysis done of the property owners’ business and buildings to figure out his financial situation, if the property held enough equity to ever repay the taxpayers?
- Has an assessment been made to determine the impact of the intense involvement of the city on the property in regard to the value by potential investors (that may devalue the asset)?
Operational questions
- Has this section of the City Code been used previously for this purpose (since 1986)? If not, why was this case selected as the first use? What consideration was made in advance?
- How will emergency contractors be procured? Who selects who will get the contracts for the $500,000?
- What process exists if the owner disputes repair costs?
- How will expenditures be monitored and reported to the public?
Policy alternatives
- What alternatives were evaluated before appropriating Housing Trust Fund dollars without taxpayer input?
- What factors led the Council to favor repairs rather than relocation? Then, why is the precedent being set for the stated expansion of the program?
- Under what circumstances would the City use this authority again, and what criteria will guide future decisions now that the city manager has been tasked to create a task force, process direction to build a budget?
Transparency
- What was the 2023 administrative agreement referenced during Council debate?
- Why was it handled administratively rather than by ordinance? Is the agreement publicly available?
- Has the City evaluated whether the agreement achieved its intended objectives?
- Will the City Council agree to redo this process so that public input can be considered before more money is spent?
- Will the city be transparent with all financials related to this ordinance?
Prepared by:
Stacey Johnson-Cosby
KC Regional Housing Alliance, President
ReeceNichols Real Estate, Agent
816-591-5921 | StaceyKCAgent@gmail.com
Information in this document is based on City records, public meeting materials, property records, official statements, and published media reports.