Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates running for Leawood City Council to address leading up to the Nov. 4 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to Leawood residents.

Each day this week, we’re publishing the candidates’ responses to one question.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

Old city hall: After years of discussion, the Leawood city council recently opted to move forward with a plan to demolish the city’s historic original city hall to make way for a public green space, rejecting residents’ calls for a privately owned coffee shop. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on this issue:

Ward 1

Sarah Meuli

Did not provide the Post with a response.

Matt Peppes

I don’t agree with the decision to demolish Old City Hall. From the beginning, residents of Ward 1 made their voices clear that they wanted to see the building preserved and reused in a way that added value to the neighborhood, such as through a locally owned coffee shop. When residents take the time to participate, share ideas, and rally around a vision for their part of the city, I believe it’s our responsibility as elected officials to listen and take that input seriously.

As someone who’s lived in Leawood for more than three decades, I value the balance between preserving our community’s character and making thoughtful improvements. This decision represented a missed opportunity to do both, to save a meaningful part of Leawood’s history while creating a space that could bring people together.

If elected, I’ll make it a priority to ensure all residents’ voices are heard and respected in the decisions that shape our city’s future.

Ward 3

Mitch Lohr

As someone who values both history and public spaces, I was disappointed to see a plan move forward that doesn’t preserve our original city hall. Walkable “third places”—social spaces that aren’t home or work—are hard to come by outside major urban centers. I would have loved to see a café where neighbors could gather while enjoying the park with friends and family.

That said, I recognize the health and accessibility challenges the structure presented, as well as concerns about its placement between the old and new fire stations.

Still, the new public green space can become a meaningful gathering place for the community and a much-needed park for nearby residents. While I may not completely agree with the decision to raze the building, I strongly believe the city can work with residents to create something new that reflects Leawood’s enduring commitment to quality and beauty in our shared spaces. I would look forward to helping make that happen.

Rachel Rubin

I was not privy to all of the discussions and resident input regarding the old city hall, so it’s difficult to judge the council’s decision to tear it down. From my understanding, it was important to many of the residents living in northern Leawood to retain the historic city hall and put it to use in some fashion. Potential options included a coffee shop or community meeting space. The city held public events to evaluate potential uses, all of which were well attended. I hope that the city builds a beautiful park for residents in that area to enjoy, as there are a dearth of parks in the city’s original neighborhoods.

Daniel Taylor

Did not provide the Post with a response.