U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2012, 01:08 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105

Advertisements

Geez kcmo. Still can't get over that hatred of Kansas and in particular Johnson County? I'm not sure what the DSM diagnosis would be, but I'm sure there has to be one. To mention occasionally that you don't like Kansas/Johnson County would be one thing, but to absolutely hate a state/county so much that you can't let it go and perseverate year after year after year after year and now try to fantasize about it not existing at all - well, I'm just sitting here in disbelief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,216,465 times
Reputation: 3739
I'm not sure if some folks don't understand what a dream is and it's clear that "tongue and cheek" isn't someone well understood at all, but I have no problem with this thread -- even though his scenario includes getting rid of both the states of Kansas and Missouri. Ya'll need to chill out and grow a sense of humor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 03:16 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
I'm not sure if some folks don't understand what a dream is and it's clear that "tongue and cheek" isn't someone well understood at all, but I have no problem with this thread -- even though his scenario includes getting rid of both the states of Kansas and Missouri. Ya'll need to chill out and grow a sense of humor.
I have a perfectly good sense of humor. Watching kcmo put down Kansas and Johnson County constantly isn't funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 05:08 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
And did you mean tongue IN cheek (instead of tongue and cheek?). If kcmo brought it up a couple of times, I would consider it tongue in cheek. You know what they say - true words are often spoken in jest. If he were kidding, that would be different, but kcmo actually does hate Kansas and Johnson County. So no - his "tongue in cheek" comments are not funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Yea, lighten up people. The Denver/KC/StL map is nothing more than wishing the three metros were closer. (sorry, I'm not a fan of rural midwest) and the Lake Kansas thing was just a joke that is much more about giving KC some lake front property than "destroying kansas".

Having said that, Blue Earth, you are simplifying things way too much as usual. You don't look at this from a KC perspective (like the AMC move), you look at it from a Kansas perspective by finding any excuse you can to justify the insanity that goes on in KC. AMC was not leaving, but you have taken the PR bait as to why they took the money. By giving them that much money, I'm not sure metro KC is better off keeping them, especially if they are not even around in 15 years.

They would have stayed in KCMO had KS not offered them a winning lottery ticket, but what’s done is done. Now KCMO is trying to fight back and it’s only going to hurt the area’s economy handing out so many excessive incentive to area companies to move around. But I guess that’s just too complicated for most people to understand. Maybe metro KC will finally figure it out when it has a 15% sales tax and still no light rail or other infrastructure to show for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:37 PM
 
400 posts, read 843,522 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Having said that, Blue Earth, you are simplifying things way too much as usual. You don't look at this from a KC perspective (like the AMC move), you look at it from a Kansas perspective by finding any excuse you can to justify the insanity that goes on in KC. AMC was not leaving, but you have taken the PR bait as to why they took the money. By giving them that much money, I'm not sure metro KC is better off keeping them, especially if they are not even around in 15 years.

They would have stayed in KCMO had KS not offered them a winning lottery ticket, but whatís done is done. Now KCMO is trying to fight back and itís only going to hurt the areaís economy handing out so many excessive incentive to area companies to move around. But I guess thatís just too complicated for most people to understand. Maybe metro KC will finally figure it out when it has a 15% sales tax and still no light rail or other infrastructure to show for it.
You're assuming that AMC would have stayed in Kansas City. That assumption is wrong:

Quote:
AMC acknowledged that the payments were a powerful carrot to move to Leawood and to keep the company in metropolitan Kansas City, which is only the companyís 21st-largest market.

"It would have been very attractive to have our corporate office align closer to a larger group of our theaters," said Mark McDonald, AMC's executive vice president for global development. "The incentives help to make what could have been a very complicated situation a much simpler situation."
Quote:
AMC's lease at 10 Main Center in Downtown expires in 2013
AMC's move from Kansas City weaves together two story lines - Kansas City Business Journal

AMC's lease was going to expire on the downtown building in 2013, and they stated that it would have been attractive financially to be in a market closer to a larger group of their theaters. Kansas City is only the 21st-largest market for AMC.

The $40 million incentive from Kansas to AMC actually kept AMC in metro KC because it provided a financial reason to stay, as opposed to moving to a bigger theater market like they said they were considering. They are now building a brand new $30 million headquarters in metro KC because of that funding from Kansas, a headquarters which will probably keep them in metro KC for a very long time.

You tell me I'm simplifying it, but that's what you are doing. You're so focused on your Kansas-hate that it blinds you to other possibilities. You would prefer a company to move to an entirely different city as opposed to going across the state line. That is how anti-Kansas you are.

Few companies are loyal to any city in this day and age. Few companies will stay "just because". A company will make a decision about relocation due to economic factors. If Kansas City is AMC's 21st-largest market, and it is financially-sound for them to move to a bigger AMC market, that's what they are going to do. Unless they get a $40 million incentive to stay local. Kansas stepped up and provided that money, which made AMC not have to move.

You should actually thank Kansas for doing that. You should thank Kansas for keeping an iconic company in the metro area, rather than saying "oh, they'll never leave us" and then watching as they announce one morning that they are leaving for Houston or something.

A KCMO company is getting bailed out and financially-stabilized by Kansas, and you are griping about how Kansas is "at war" with the city. It looks more like Kansas is supporting the city by supporting a Kansas City company and keeping it local. There is more than one way to look at this, and you are not doing that!

And no, I am NOT looking at this as a Kansas thing. I am looking at it as a metro area thing. If Sprint Nextel's lease in JoCo was going to expire, and they were considering moving to another city, I would be ALL FOR the state of Missouri giving them millions to build in the northland or south KC or wherever, so that it keeps the company in the metro area. I would be all for that. The closer to the state line the better. AMC moved to Leawood, dude. It's like one mile across the state line. Get a grip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
^ keep telling yourself that. Nevermind that no other state is going to give them 47 million to move there and not expect a major uproar from tax payers and AMC would be stupid to NOT take the money and move 10 miles down the road.

You are right, Kansas did KC a huge favor.

I'm glad you are buying the "bigger theater market" BS though. While KC may not be the biggest market, KC has some of AMC's best, busiest and most unique theater complexes. Sure they could have left but again, there was no other state dangling that kind of cash while the state across the street was. I don't blame AMC for taking the money and running, but you are pretty gullible if you are that quick to buy their justification for the move. They moved to KS for one reason, MONEY. A huge amount of money that they were not going to get from anybody else.

If KS is going to poach from kcmo, then they should at least think about using such opportunities to bring back aging areas on the KS side. 47 million to poach a company from an urban area 10-15 miles away? Taking a company out of an urban area to place them in one of the country's most affluent suburbs is asinine. KS is subsidizing the crap out of office parks in affluent suburbs while most of KCK deteriorates (except its own subsidized sprawl).

And you don't have to post articles. I have read just about every business article that could possibly come out of the KC market for the past 20 years and continue to do so 1000 miles away. There is just about nothing you could post about KC business that I have not already seen.

Last edited by kcmo; 01-04-2012 at 11:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,216,465 times
Reputation: 3739
Yes, I definitely meant tongue in cheek, which, of course, you knew. How magnanimous of you to point out a meaningless typo.

Surely you must be entirely beyond reproach yourself, yes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 12:12 PM
 
400 posts, read 843,522 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I'm glad you are buying the "bigger theater market" BS though. While KC may not be the biggest market, KC has some of AMC's best, busiest and most unique theater complexes. Sure they could have left but again, there was no other state dangling that kind of cash while the state across the street was. I don't blame AMC for taking the money and running, but you are pretty gullible if you are that quick to buy their justification for the move. They moved to KS for one reason, MONEY. A huge amount of money that they were not going to get from anybody else.

If KS is going to poach from kcmo, then they should at least think about using such opportunities to bring back aging areas on the KS side. 47 million to poach a company from an urban area 10-15 miles away? Taking a company out of an urban area to place them in one of the country's most affluent suburbs is asinine. KS is subsidizing the crap out of office parks in affluent suburbs while most of KCK deteriorates (except its own subsidized sprawl).
They moved to KS because it stabilized their financial position. Read this again:

Quote:
"It would have been very attractive to have our corporate office align closer to a larger group of our theaters," said Mark McDonald, AMC's executive vice president for global development. "The incentives help to make what could have been a very complicated situation a much simpler situation."
Obviously they were considering moving to another city for financial reasons. The money from KS filled whatever financial hole they were seeking to make-up by moving, thus providing them with no financial reason to move to another metro area. That's what you are not seeing.

Are you privy to AMC's internal financial reports? Do you know how much more money they could have made by moving to a bigger theater market, considering that KC is only the 21st-largest market for AMC? No, you don't. You are assuming that you know things, when you don't actually have the data to make those judgments. I'm going by what the corporate officials have stated about their intentions and what they were planning.

And once again, KS didn't poach anyone's company. KS gave financial incentives for a company to stay in the the bi-state KS-MO metro area. I don't care whether a company is headquartered in an urban area or suburban area. You live in the Maryland suburbs and you're all "urban, urban, urban" on City-Data. Why don't you move to downtown Baltimore? Are you a hypocrite?

KS should "bring back" aging areas in KCK? When has MO done anything for the ghetto war-zone in east KC or north STL? The primary downtown area in Kansas is WICHITA, not KCK. The state of Kansas invests in downtown Wichita. Downtown Wichita is nice. They have things like a downtown baseball stadium, downtown basketball arena, parks and trails along the river, the historic Old Town and Delano districts, nice hotels like the Hyatt and Broadview, the Orpheum Theater. Overall, it's a clean and active downtown. There have been a lot of improvements in downtown Wichita in the last 20 years. In addition to that, the state invests significantly in Lawrence and Manhattan, which are both really nice college towns equal to nearly any mid-sized college towns anywhere in America.

And by the way, the state does invest in urban KCK, just not to the extent that it does in urban Wichita. The GM Fairfax plant gets a lot of support from state leaders. That's one of the largest GM plants west of the Mississippi and is a primary employer in urban KCK. The other main employer in urban KCK is the KU Medical Center complex, which gets almost all of its funding from the state. Overall, KCK is low on the list of priorities in Kansas. Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Manhattan, and Johnson County are all more prioritized, which they should be. The state is also a big rural state, so education funding, agriculture, and rural transportation issues take up a large portion of state funding and focus. But as you can see with things like the GM Fairfax plant and the KU Med Complex, the state of Kansas has not just pulled out of urban KCK entirely. The state focuses first on other places that are bigger priorities.

Once again, when has MO done anything for east KC or north STL? When has Illinois done anything for East STL? When has Nebraska done anything for north Omaha. There is more to Kansas than the little sliver of it that you are familiar with in your KC-area mindset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 07:01 PM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,147,204 times
Reputation: 1916
Its an imaginary map for chrissakes. Lighten up.

For instance, MY dream map would be essentially the exact same as the actual map but the Kansas Missouri border would follow Blue River south of the Big Muddy instead of state line and Independence, MO would be the size of St Paul, MN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top