Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure you could point out the top 5 issues in any metro and find a way to bicker about them if you're from there. KC's issues are relatively small compared to most metros... not that KC shouldn't work to resolve its issues. And the local company poaching thing does need to be resolved.
I'll put the blinders on and forget about this. They must sell them at the quiktrips in town or better yet give them out with every tank of gas purchased.
Don't follow the blinders comment as I didn't at all imply that. No doubt it's an issue that needs to be addressed... But to leave town or not move here because of it (as you specifically stated) is rather melodramatic.
What in the world are you talking about? What does building roads in Branson have to do with Kansas stealing companies from kcmo? You Kansans will find any excuse in the book to justify this stuff won't you? I'm sorry Kansas is not a tourism state. I guess the only way to fix that is for KS to steal KCMO's museums, sports teams, etc. I'm sure it would if it could.
And for the love of god, stop with the etax and schools being an even remote reason for these moves. Taxes are lower in MO and there are plenty of fine suburban school districts within 10-30 minutes of Downtown KC, Park Hill being in the city limits itself and only 10 minutes from downtown. Most people DON'T have school aged kids anyway and none of this matters because a company like AMC isn't going to give a rip about schools when looking for a place to office. Do you honestly think that kcmo's urban problems are unique to kc??? They took the cash and ran. As soon as people in KC accept that for what it is, the sooner it will stop and that 47 million can be used for something more productive.
For the record, the AMC thing is indeed clear poaching.
I'm not saying either is right and as I'm reminded you in the past I'm a transplant so I'm not stupidly bought into the rivalry.
I'm pointing out ways that MO unquestionably sucks money out of KS with state backed initiatives. If you don't see how the hundreds of millions pumped into roads leading to Branson etc. from the KC area isn't a state subsidy drawing money out of KS I can't spell it out any more clearly.
Casinos, lower gas taxes, support for stadiums and venues matter too.
I am actually someone that FULLY supports THE METRO. I've outlined how much money I pump annually into venues on the other side of the imaginary line and your general replies are that the KS side just siphons off MO by using all their good venues like the Sprint center etc.
Really, great attitude and a lot of insults for the people the help GREATLY in supporting the METRO. Lots of KS money from the burbs wanders into subsidized meccas but *gasp* if KCK does that for Legends....it's a crime.
You see 1/2 the problem clearly. The other 1/2 you are oblivious and insulting towards....and then you demand we work together to stop the first 1/2.
Wow, I didn't know MO built those roads to Branson for Kansas. That's interesting.
Branson is a national tourist destination. I see ads and giveaways out here all the time for Branson. Again, I'm sorry Kansas has no such thing, but Kansans are not the only ones that go to branson. The roads to Brason were improved to allow better access to metro KC and KCI as well as St Louis, Springfield and Arkansas to the south. The state also helped with the new airport in Branson. None of this has anything to do with what's going on in Topeka and the fact that they have declared war on KCMO's corporate economy.
Casinos? Again, what do they have to do with anything? KCK is building a casino. Gas taxes? Seriously??? "support" for stadiums? Yea, and MO side residents attually go to the games and buy tickets too you know...on top of building the facilities. If it is "metro" KC, then why is it so difficult to understand that the KS side is not just a bunch of tourists, but rather an important part of the metro area that should contribute and cooperate with the MO side as much as possible? Should it go both ways? Sure. But focus on having a thriving core city and that is where most existing attractions are and should remain for the metro area to remain vibrant and strong. So many other cities get this. It makes no sense to relocate the zoo or the nelson or arrowhead to KS just so they are on the KS side of the "imaginary" line. The fact is that the KS side will NEVER contribute its fair share to these amenities, mostly due to political reasons and that's fine, but to go after kcmo companies and literally yank them from the city is destructive to the metro area as a whole.
I have absolutely nothing against Park Place in Leawood and if they were to land say Verizon Wireless from Denver to that project, that would be great for KC. But to take one existing business after another out of the urban core and place them in the suburbs of the same city using astronomical incentives is just crazy and I seriously have a difficult time seeing how anybody that is even remotley a fan of "metro" KC can support or defend such nonsense.
If this were Lee's Summit doing this, I would be posting the exact same thing. Kansas is heavily subsidizing one of the most affluent suburbs in the nation and doing so almost entirely at the expense of the city that gives that suburb a reason to exist in the first place.
You are taking 400-500 MORE high paying jobs out of the core of the city and making it that much more challenging and difficult for the City as a whole to compete with Denver or Minneapolis or Dallas.
I really can't explain this any more than I have. It's obvious that this will be swept under the rug and ignored by most people in KC. Heck, most people in KC will actually try to blame this on KCMO for having the etax or bad schools, just like you did, neither of which have any impact what so ever on these moves.
I guess the only way to fix this is for Missouri to just start shelling out the cash. Missouri could have offered 20 million and probably would have been able to keep AMC. But once MO starts paying to have companies stay in the state, their economy will tank because St Louis companies will ask for the same treatment even though they don't have the same problem KC does. Jeff City knows this. Again, no other suburb in the country is doing this to their respective core city the way KS is doing it to KCMO, including St Louis and so KC is just going to continue to be collateral damage of this war till there is nothing left to take and KS starts having something to lose and MO can fire back. These companies are not going to leave KC either. They will not get 47 million dollars to move to some swanky suburb in any other market. Doesn't happen. KS has been handing out 10 million for every 100 employees they get from KCMO for the past ten years on average. Nobody does that, especially to a neighboring city in the same metro. AMC, like many before them, got an offer that they simply could not refuse.
The bottom line in all this is not a few tax dollars, going from one side of the city to the other. It's the continued erosion of the urban core of KC which is being heavily subsidized by Kansas and such lack of metro cooperation is keeping the entire area in a rut that only makes it more difficult for any city in the metro to attract new jobs from out of state or better yet have local companies in the core with a vested interest in helping make sure that KC has a vibrant and active downtown and urban core that is attractive to existing residents, new residents and companies.
Wow, I didn't know MO built those roads to Branson for Kansas. That's interesting.
Branson is a national tourist destination. I see ads and giveaways out here all the time for Branson. Again, I'm sorry Kansas has no such thing, but Kansans are not the only ones that go to branson. The roads to Brason were improved to allow better access to metro KC and KCI as well as St Louis, Springfield and Arkansas to the south. The state also helped with the new airport in Branson. None of this has anything to do with what's going on in Topeka and the fact that they have declared war on KCMO's corporate economy.
Casinos? Again, what do they have to do with anything? KCK is building a casino. Gas taxes? Seriously??? "support" for stadiums? Yea, and MO side residents attually go to the games and buy tickets too you know...on top of building the facilities. If it is "metro" KC, then why is it so difficult to understand that the KS side is not just a bunch of tourists, but rather an important part of the metro area that should contribute and cooperate with the MO side as much as possible? Should it go both ways? Sure. But focus on having a thriving core city and that is where most existing attractions are and should remain for the metro area to remain vibrant and strong. So many other cities get this. It makes no sense to relocate the zoo or the nelson or arrowhead to KS just so they are on the KS side of the "imaginary" line. The fact is that the KS side will NEVER contribute its fair share to these amenities, mostly due to political reasons and that's fine, but to go after kcmo companies and literally yank them from the city is destructive to the metro area as a whole.
I have absolutely nothing against Park Place in Leawood and if they were to land say Verizon Wireless from Denver to that project, that would be great for KC. But to take one existing business after another out of the urban core and place them in the suburbs of the same city using astronomical incentives is just crazy and I seriously have a difficult time seeing how anybody that is even remotley a fan of "metro" KC can support or defend such nonsense.
If this were Lee's Summit doing this, I would be posting the exact same thing. Kansas is heavily subsidizing one of the most affluent suburbs in the nation and doing so almost entirely at the expense of the city that gives that suburb a reason to exist in the first place.
You are taking 400-500 MORE high paying jobs out of the core of the city and making it that much more challenging and difficult for the City as a whole to compete with Denver or Minneapolis or Dallas.
I really can't explain this any more than I have. It's obvious that this will be swept under the rug and ignored by most people in KC. Heck, most people in KC will actually try to blame this on KCMO for having the etax or bad schools, just like you did, neither of which have any impact what so ever on these moves.
I guess the only way to fix this is for Missouri to just start shelling out the cash. Missouri could have offered 20 million and probably would have been able to keep AMC. But once MO starts paying to have companies stay in the state, their economy will tank because St Louis companies will ask for the same treatment even though they don't have the same problem KC does. Jeff City knows this. Again, no other suburb in the country is doing this to their respective core city the way KS is doing it to KCMO, including St Louis and so KC is just going to continue to be collateral damage of this war till there is nothing left to take and KS starts having something to lose and MO can fire back. These companies are not going to leave KC either. They will not get 47 million dollars to move to some swanky suburb in any other market. Doesn't happen. KS has been handing out 10 million for every 100 employees they get from KCMO for the past ten years on average. Nobody does that, especially to a neighboring city in the same metro. AMC, like many before them, got an offer that they simply could not refuse.
The bottom line in all this is not a few tax dollars, going from one side of the city to the other. It's the continued erosion of the urban core of KC which is being heavily subsidized by Kansas and such lack of metro cooperation is keeping the entire area in a rut that only makes it more difficult for any city in the metro to attract new jobs from out of state or better yet have local companies in the core with a vested interest in helping make sure that KC has a vibrant and active downtown and urban core that is attractive to existing residents, new residents and companies.
Again, you gloss right over the things MO does and only focus on the KS actions.
LOL you mention KCK getting a casino as a defense but earlier today were ripping them as some type of corporate subsidy island....perfect freaking example.
Maybe the KS should build a stadium or something like the Sprint center etc.....but wait, then they'd be fighting uphill against the subsidized MO areas.
Oh, maybe they should develop their tourism like Legends....BOO HOO thats corporate subsidy and is unfair then.....it's only fair if you do that east of the state line.
Seriously, this is really rich. You have basically complained about every single form of state incentives if they occcurred in KS and then with a wave of your hand dismiss MO doing the same thing. Oh well, I guess KS will just poach companies while MO uses their money to maintain a monopoly on entertainment etc. venues. <shrug>
I think, Mathguy, what you've failed to convince me of, is that MO has done anything anywhere close to offering $45+ million to purposefully MOVE JOBS (not create them) across state lines. Sprint Center created new jobs; as did Legends for that matter. What do Kansans get out of moving 450 jobs less than 10 miles away? This hurts Missouri, that much is clear, but I honestly see Kansas as the bigger loser here in the long run, and if I were a resident I would be livid. I'm surprised to have seen so little indignation honestly.
I think, Mathguy, what you've failed to convince me of, is that MO has done anything anywhere close to offering $45+ million to purposefully MOVE JOBS (not create them) across state lines. Sprint Center created new jobs; as did Legends for that matter. What do Kansans get out of moving 450 jobs less than 10 miles away? This hurts Missouri, that much is clear, but I honestly see Kansas as the bigger loser here in the long run, and if I were a resident I would be livid. I'm surprised to have seen so little indignation honestly.
This hurts downtown and will negatively impact the renaissance it has been undergoing the past several years specifically. A crumbling or struggling downtown KCMO helps neither side of the state line. Of course Leawood would see little negative impact but the same cannot be said of close-in KCKS.
I understand why AMC took the bait but I am greatly disappointed in their decision as I am with Leawood's actions in baiting them across the state line. The unintended consequences are that this really could end up harming the JOCO taxpayers as internet delivery of movies continues to replace people attending the more expensive movie theaters.
Again, you gloss right over the things MO does and only focus on the KS actions.
LOL you mention KCK getting a casino as a defense but earlier today were ripping them as some type of corporate subsidy island....perfect freaking example.
Maybe the KS should build a stadium or something like the Sprint center etc.....but wait, then they'd be fighting uphill against the subsidized MO areas.
Oh, maybe they should develop their tourism like Legends....BOO HOO thats corporate subsidy and is unfair then.....it's only fair if you do that east of the state line.
Seriously, this is really rich. You have basically complained about every single form of state incentives if they occcurred in KS and then with a wave of your hand dismiss MO doing the same thing. Oh well, I guess KS will just poach companies while MO uses their money to maintain a monopoly on entertainment etc. venues. <shrug>
What? You have not said anything any your posts at all to convince me that MO is or had done anything even remotely like what KS has and continues to do.
Village West is an island of corporate welfare, so what if I said KCK is building a casino out there, that has nothing to do with the fact that Kansas has subsidized all that development out there in the middle of nowhere while most of KCK continues to rot away. Where is KCMO doing this? Is the Power and Light District by KCI? Did they move it? Zona Rosa is not a tif project, let alone a super tiff (aka star bond) and it's nice from downtown all the way to KCI, unlike KCK between downtown and the Legends.
Kansas is even shooting itself in the foot. The state subsidized the old applebees HQ in Lenexa to lure them from OP (who lured them from KCMO) and when they left, that same subsidized building will empty out the EPA building in downtown KCK.
I have a question maybe someone can answer this. If the founder of AMC was a huge supporter and idea maker behind P&L, why wasn't a new HQ just built there instead of giving incentives to HR Block to build a new HQ. It almost seems like a slap in the face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
