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 08-12-2016, 01:26 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 985,842 times
Reputation: 658

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Hey, I think we are all on the same page about these subsidies being a bad thing whether the companies get them to stay or to move.

I think you're mixing and mashing different topics together. KS started doing this under Sebelius and it continued with Brownback.

The budget cuts came much later and were a result of Brownbacks tax actions which are a separate bad thing. To say that the PEAK program caused the budget cuts doesn't logically flow.

P.S. Speaking of poaching with obscene incentives....you aren't a Rams fan by any chance?
What major examples of poaching occurred under Sebelius, exactly?

If you have numbers that prove the PEAK program did not affect the Kansas budget, I'd be glad to see them. But what on earth is illogical about saying that huge incentives from the state government can lead to state budget shortfalls?

No, I'm a Chiefs not, not a Rams fan. But don't get me started about the pissing contest that has become major league sports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2016, 01:40 PM
 
48,973 posts, read 39,447,996 times
Reputation: 30630
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
What major examples of poaching occurred under Sebelius, exactly?
In post #25 I linked to an article. Pages 21-23 detailed the poaching in the area specifically.

There was JP Morgan and KeyBank both prior to 2011.

Also, the major program PEAK predates Brownback by years.

I urge you to read that article if you haven't already.

As for the budget you're now creating a different argument. The incentives didn't lead to the recent budget cuts, it's widely accepted that's because of decreased tax revenues. It's like a man that hits a squirrel with his car. Five years later he crashes into a moose and his airconditioner stops working the next day. Which action was the most likely culprit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 01:53 PM
 
48,973 posts, read 39,447,996 times
Reputation: 30630
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
What major examples of poaching occurred under Sebelius, exactly?

If you have numbers that prove the PEAK program did not affect the Kansas budget, I'd be glad to see them. But what on earth is illogical about saying that huge incentives from the state government can lead to state budget shortfalls?

No, I'm a Chiefs not, not a Rams fan. But don't get me started about the pissing contest that has become major league sports.
Yeah, including the cost of the stadium it was up over 300million to poach the Rams away...or about 15mil a year that they stayed. That was back in 1995.

The argument was that the team would draw tourism etc.

It's no different than luring a bank or other company.

I only bring it up because the article really just focuses on the last 10 years...and it's back in the news again with them leaving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,525,549 times
Reputation: 5420
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
There is absolutely no support for claiming that both sides are equally guilty. Missouri did strike back, yes. But they brought a knife to a gun fight. Anecdotally, anyone can make it look like tit-for-tat, but if you add up the numbers, it's clear that Kansas not only completely overwhelmed Missouri in the poaching game, they looked like they were trying to make the Guinness Book in the process.*

*In terms of incentives paid per employee moved. There have been some humongous poaching deals in other states, but they're for companies like Nissan, Sears Roebuck and Citigroup. Not stinking Applebees or Freightquote.

^
That sums things up pretty well.

But somehow Kansans justify this poaching, if not support it. There is almost no other example of this anywhere in the country where a state has aggressively gone after companies across the border with such absurd incentives that the state will ultimately lose much more money than they will ever gain in any sort of economic activity. It's even worse in Kansas since nearly all the "new" employees already live in the area and won't be moving to Kansas.

This has been going on long before Brownback (although Brownback did take things up a notch) and it has done tremendous harm to the urban core of KCMO.

They can bring up Cerner, Branson, the Rams or whatever else they can come up with that have nothing to do with this specific topic. Kansas has plenty of corporate welfare going on across their state too, but this bistate thing in KC is a totally different animal.

To support what Kansas has been doing and what they have forced MO to do in return is absurd. No way can anybody that truly wants to see Kansas City, (all of Kansas City) thrive and grow even remotely justify it. Even if you hate KCMO and don't care about the health of the entire metro area, I don't see how anybody can justify this stuff because it's so superficial. It hurts Kansas too in the long run and stats have shown that over the past few years. Just because you see new office buildings on 135th or Renner or College Blvd does not mean the KS economy is thriving. It's a mirage.

I can't think of a more fake economic image than most of Johnson County where almost every single commercial development in that supposedly affluent and desirable county is extremely subsidized. Almost every new hotel, retail center, office building etc is subsidized more in JoCo than what you would see in distressed urban areas. Most of the urban redevelopment in downtown KC is subsidized far less than office, hotel and retail developments in far flung areas of JoCo. It's crazy that nobody in Kansas cares.

Even the KC Business Journal has said it. They have tried to do stories on JoCo corporate welfare and not so much as a pin drop of interest. Kansans will be first in line to rip the KCMO etax or the tiff used to build the power and light district though.

Absolutely mind boggling.

Last edited by kcmo; 08-12-2016 at 03:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 03:36 PM
 
12,618 posts, read 14,633,813 times
Reputation: 14131
kcmo, this was a thread where the OP asked for opinions from Johnson Countians. Why did you feel the need to jump in with both feet, first post, and BASH Kansas/Johnson County when obviously the post was not asking for YOUR opinion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 04:45 PM
 
684 posts, read 583,234 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post

I do share kcmo's concern about outsiders getting confused about which Kansas City is the region's center; my stock response to comments like "What was it like growing up in Kansas?" when I tell people around where I live now where I grew up is:

Carry on as before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
kcmo, this was a thread where the OP asked for opinions from Johnson Countians. Why did you feel the need to jump in with both feet, first post, and BASH Kansas/Johnson County when obviously the post was not asking for YOUR opinion?
Surprisingly, I really don't think the OP minds luzianne. Whether you like it or not, kcmo offers lots of insight into this area as a whole. Bashing both sides of the state line for obvious reasons, but you'll never read or hear Truly Missouri complaining as to why and how he bashes Missouri at times... sensitivity, only Kansans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 04:58 PM
 
12,618 posts, read 14,633,813 times
Reputation: 14131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Missouri View Post
Surprisingly, I really don't think the OP minds luzianne. Whether you like it or not, kcmo offers lots of insight into this area as a whole. Bashing both sides of the state line for obvious reasons, but you'll never read or hear Truly Missouri complaining as to why and how he bashes Missouri at times... sensitivity, only Kansans.
Then the OP gets kcmo's warped opinion, and none from Johnson Countians because it's a waste of their time to post an opinion only to have it attacked my kcmo and you. Yep, sounds like a great plan!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 05:09 PM
 
684 posts, read 583,234 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Then the OP gets kcmo's warped opinion, and none from Johnson Countians because it's a waste of their time to post an opinion only to have it attacked my kcmo and you. Yep, sounds like a great plan!
I'm not attacking. And I don't ever really recall ever attacking, specifically anyone's opinions towards JoCo. You however, spend more time addressing and complaining (attacking) about kcmo than anything to do with the OP. Thou dost protest too much.

Mathguy is doing just a fine job posting his opinions. Other commenters are entitled unto a rebuttal, but I wouldn't call or define it as attacking.

Sensitivity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 05:48 PM
 
12,618 posts, read 14,633,813 times
Reputation: 14131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truly Missouri View Post
I'm not attacking. And I don't ever really recall ever attacking, specifically anyone's opinions towards JoCo. You however, spend more time addressing and complaining (attacking) about kcmo than anything to do with the OP. Thou dost protest too much.

Mathguy is doing just a fine job posting his opinions. Other commenters are entitled unto a rebuttal, but I wouldn't call or define it as attacking.

Sensitivity.
"sensitivity" - says the person who is probably the most sensitive person here and gets upset that KU advertises in Missouri and that the city "Kansas City" contains the name "Kansas." OMG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 06:08 PM
 
684 posts, read 583,234 times
Reputation: 867
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
"sensitivity" - says the person who is probably the most sensitive person here and gets upset that KU advertises in Missouri and that the city "Kansas City" contains the name "Kansas." OMG
I don't get upset. Neither am I sensitive. I've just brought those issues up before for discussion. I don't like how Kansas bleeds over that imaginary line creating perceptions that Kansas City is "Kansas" City, when the main city is Missouri.

Now let the OP have his topic back. And stop trying to digress it.
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
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