Why is the kc forum so dead? (Kansas City, Garden City: motel, tax)

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

I am completely cool with the airport.

I went to pick up my husband, whose flight came in at quarter to midnight on Monday, and we were home with our sleeping baby by 12:20, counting getting his baggage, getting to the car, driving back to NE JoCo, and unloading.

He travels a lot for military stuff, and it being a quick in and out is pretty key to our quality of life. I spent most of my life with the hell that is O'Hare, and I will take "easy to get in and out of quickly" ANY day of the week.

What makes you think a new airport terminal would not be just as easy to use as the current KCI terminals? A new terminal does not equal Ohare hassles. I now fly out of BWI and DCA on a regular basis and both are just as easy to use as a home base airport as KCI. KCI is not going to turn into a 50-90 million passenger airport just because they build a new terminal. It will still be a 10 million passenger airport, so no matter what, it will be very easy to use, even at 7am on Mondays mornings (when it currently fails) not just at midnight.

If I landed at BWI at midnight, I could be at the curb and picked up within a few minutes too. Bag claim would take 15 minutes, just like KCI. KCI is not special. Not at all. Using a bus stop for an airport is great unless you are a business traveler, have a flight delay, need to make a connection, are freaking hungry.... Yet using a real airport terminal with modern amenities even if you don't want or need them really does not reduce the quality of your travel. Having a Chipoltle in an airport is not what makes airports like Ohare a PITA. Being one of the largest and busiest airports int he world is what causes it to be a PITA.

[empires228]

Originally Posted by kcmo

What makes you think a new airport terminal would not be just as easy to use as the current KCI terminals? A new terminal does not equal Ohare hassles. I now fly out of BWI and DCA on a regular basis and both are just as easy to use as a home base airport as KCI. KCI is not going to turn into a 50-90 million passenger airport just because they build a new terminal. It will still be a 10 million passenger airport, so no matter what, it will be very easy to use, even at 7am on Mondays mornings (when it currently fails) not just at midnight.

If I landed at BWI at midnight, I could be at the curb and picked up within a few minutes too. Bag claim would take 15 minutes, just like KCI. KCI is not special. Not at all. Using a bus stop for an airport is great unless you are a business traveler, have a flight delay, need to make a connection, are freaking hungry.... Yet using a real airport terminal with modern amenities even if you don't want or need them really does not reduce the quality of your travel. Having a Chipoltle in an airport is not what makes airports like Ohare a PITA. Being one of the largest and busiest airports int he world is what causes it to be a PITA.

KCI will always been an almost impossible topic even with facts and data. The new terminal in Wichita has done nothing but good things for the community travelwise, and despite some local backlash related to changing the name, and some stubborn older residents who thought the dark and damp mess it replaced was the pinnacle of travel, it has been well received. It has a couple of chain and local options that are accessible past security and parking was super easy and will be for many years to come even if the airport continues to grow, but no, Kansas City can't look at that or any other positives other cities have seen come from a new airport. I wonder if the troubled history of Lambert in STL in recent years (over 30 million flights per year to less than half of that today) has played a part in the resistance to change in KCMO.

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by kcmo

What makes you think a new airport terminal would not be just as easy to use as the current KCI terminals?

I didn't say it wouldn't. What I said is, I have zero issues with it as-is.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by empires228

KCI will always been an almost impossible topic even with facts and data. The new terminal in Wichita has done nothing but good things for the community travelwise, and despite some local backlash related to changing the name, and some stubborn older residents who thought the dark and damp mess it replaced was the pinnacle of travel, it has been well received. It has a couple of chain and local options that are accessible past security and parking was super easy and will be for many years to come even if the airport continues to grow, but no, Kansas City can't look at that or any other positives other cities have seen come from a new airport. I wonder if the troubled history of Lambert in STL in recent years (over 30 million flights per year to less than half of that today) has played a part in the resistance to change in KCMO.

I don't think STL has anything to do with KC stubborn mentality with changing KCI. STL lost all those flights when they lost their hub and have since started to rebound quite well considering they are no longer a hub. One of the main reasons that Southwest has added so many flight to STL is because they are limited on what they can do at KCI. Southwest originally wanted to make KCI a much bigger focus city, but because of the situation at KCI, they have basically given those flights to STL instead. Most smaller airports are much nicer than KCI, including Wichita. Pretty embarrassing actually.

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

I didn't say it wouldn't. What I said is, I have zero issues with it as-is.

That makes sense, but most people in KC would rather hold back the entire city just because they are afraid of changing the airport even though a new airport would likely be an improvement for everybody, even those that don't want KCI to change and wouldn't use any of the improvements. The basic functions of KCI don't even work well.

[TabulaRasa]

I don't know that most people consider the airport to be something that holds KC back (maybe they do, don't know...it's not one of my pet issues, so I couldn't say I follow it...I think mostly people dissatisfied with the airport follow it and those of us who are satisfied with it don't have any reason to follow it). If they did, decisions on the issue would be different.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by kcmo

I don't think STL has anything to do with KC stubborn mentality with changing KCI. STL lost all those flights when they lost their hub and have since started to rebound quite well considering they are no longer a hub. One of the main reasons that Southwest has added so many flight to STL is because they are limited on what they can do at KCI. Southwest originally wanted to make KCI a much bigger focus city, but because of the situation at KCI, they have basically given those flights to STL instead. Most smaller airports are much nicer than KCI, including Wichita. Pretty embarrassing actually.



That makes sense, but most people in KC would rather hold back the entire city just because they are afraid of changing the airport even though a new airport would likely be an improvement for everybody, even those that don't want KCI to change and wouldn't use any of the improvements. The basic functions of KCI don't even work well.

Maybe you haven't figured out that your prolonged Debbie Downer streaks about how "embarrassing" an airport is or how KC is getting "passed up" by Nashville/Charlotte/Austin don't really move the needle around here.

For a person that grew up here, you sure don't seem to understand our culture very much.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

Maybe you haven't figured out that your prolonged Debbie Downer streaks about how "embarrassing" an airport is or how KC is getting "passed up" by Nashville/Charlotte/Austin don't really move the needle around here.

For a person that grew up here, you sure don't seem to understand our culture very much.

So, what is your culture? The things I say are no different than what you would hear anybody say that wants to see KC progress, including the mayor, who has tried to go up against this "culture" and so far has generally failed and keeps having to pull back on his ideals. What is your answer? Do nothing I guess. I that the "culture" you are talking about?

[luzianne]

^^^^Yeah, and the city council also just voted to give the Intercontinental Hotel "blighted" designation so they can make improvements with tax money. In return, they agree to "give back" to truly blighted areas - but that giving back is miniscule compared to the amount they will receive ($5 million). I guess that's the price of progress? Why not use the $5 million for TRUE blight? Or to fix the sewer system so you don't smell sewage when you go to the Sprint Center?


Now what happens if other businesses want to be declared "blighted" too?

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

^^^^Yeah, and the city council also just voted to give the Intercontinental Hotel "blighted" designation so they can make improvements with tax money. In return, they agree to "give back" to truly blighted areas - but that giving back is miniscule compared to the amount they will receive ($5 million). I guess that's the price of progress? Why not use the $5 million for TRUE blight? Or to fix the sewer system so you don't smell sewage when you go to the Sprint Center?


Now what happens if other businesses want to be declared "blighted" too?

I have already posted my opinion on this, so if you are somehow using this as an argument against my idea of progress, you are way off base.

Originally Posted by kcmo

It's just wrong that the gov of Kansas keeps calling these press conferences to talk about new jobs the state is attracting when he is not mentioning that fact that the jobs are already in the metro nor is the state releasing details on just how much poaching those jobs are costing tax payers (KS often goes way beyond "normal" incentives to attract jobs).

I personally thought the city giving intercontinental hotel on the plaza incentives was a terrible idea and would set a really bad precedent. Sure enough, the same day KCMO passed that, the Marriott on the Plaza hinted at asking for a similar incentive. The Downtown Marriott has already been subsidized enough and hotels like that have plenty of corporate money to remodel without city money. They do it all the time.

KC has to at some point turn off the spigot. The proposed downtown convention hyatt hotel is something those types of incentives should be reserved for. New construction hotels with a lot of ballroom space are not practical to build in a market like KC without some help, but it's worth the investment. That hotel will grow the entire hotel market in KC, indirectly helping hotels like the Marriott and those hotels have already stated that. Even the big Crown Center hotels have stated a big new convention hotel will ultimately help them. Without city help, the Hyatt would never happen and KC's convention industry would remain flat. But giving incentives to every hotel in the city? Yep, pretty stupid and another reason why KC has ridiculously high sales taxes and no room to use sales taxes as funding for other things like transit.

[PA650]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

Maybe you haven't figured out that your prolonged Debbie Downer streaks about how "embarrassing" an airport is or how KC is getting "passed up" by Nashville/Charlotte/Austin don't really move the needle around here.

For a person that grew up here, you sure don't seem to understand our culture very much.

So the culture entails defending a crappy airport because it seemed great when you used it once every three months? Anyone that I know that uses it frequently for business travel will say it's great, but if their flight is delayed, well, the conversation turns to how much of an outmoded mess it is. KCI should just be re-branded the premier bus terminal of the Midwest. Although newer bus terminals are probably nicer.