Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

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

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. So far, we’ve published responses on their visions for the next decade.

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

A few years after Prairie Village’s bitter fight over housing and zoning, the Legislature has largely taken the decision out of the city’s hands. SB 418, which took effect July 1, counts duplexes and townhomes as single-family housing, allows accessory dwellings without special permits and ends neighbors’ protest petitions, among other provisions. Prairie Village joined nearby cities in opposing the law. As mayor, how do you think the city should comply with this law? Do you agree with the city’s formal stance against the law? Why or why not?

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

Inga Selders

I firmly agree with the city’s formal stance against SB 418 and share the deep frustration many residents feel regarding this severe overreach and loss of local control. Prairie Village is a unique, fully built-out community with a distinct character. A one-size-fits-all, state-mandated zoning law that forces density into established neighborhoods without local oversight is the wrong approach for our city. Worse, it strips away neighbors’ fundamental rights to protest changes that directly impact their daily lives.

As your mayor, my priority would be to protect our neighborhoods to the fullest extent possible. While the legislature has attempted to take these decisions out of our hands, we are not without tools. Much of Prairie Village is safeguarded through homeowners associations. Almost every HOA Declaration of Restrictions in our city contains clear language stating that other dwellings cannot be built on a single-family lot.

SB 418 contains a vital carve-out, stating that the law does not “invalidate or limit the legality, enforceability or effect of restrictive covenants or condominium association or homeowners association regulations.”

This means our deed restrictions still hold power. Moving forward, the city’s role must be to work collaboratively with our HOAs to enforce these covenants and protect our neighborhoods. We cannot rely on state politicians to preserve our city’s charm. As your mayor, I would stand with our residents and HOAs, ensuring that we use every legal tool at our disposal to uphold local control in the community we love.

Cole Robinson

Prairie Village went through a loud and robust discussion around housing and zoning policy, and the direction provided to us was clear – residents do not want to see significant changes in housing policy in our community.

SB 418 has preempted a number of housing decisions that should belong to the cities and their right to local control. However, it is still unclear as of now what this legislation will mean for our community, so I hesitate to comment too broadly on it. According to our city staff and attorney, the law has numerous inconsistencies and many pieces have been left undefined, meaning that there will need to be significant cleaning up and clarification of the law in the upcoming legislative session this winter. As such, our city is in a holding pattern around how to move forward under this new law, and I will continue to defer to expert legal review.

I do stand with Prairie Village’s opposition to the law, especially on the principle that cities and counties in Kansas should retain local control over decisions that are best left to the layer of government closest to the people. While efforts to address a statewide housing shortage and affordability crisis are notable, I believe that each community should have the flexibility and freedom to pursue policy solutions.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

The city’s 2027 budget plan holds the property tax rate flat even as the county’s public safety sales tax expires, while general fund spending grows 3.4%. With rising home values, the median household’s municipal property tax bill would be about $970. The city is also issuing $27 million in bonds for the new municipal complex. Is the city living within its means? Do you support the current level of spending and debt relative to what taxes bring in? If not, what would you change?