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)
 
Old 03-24-2017, 06:35 AM
 
1,298 posts, read 984,056 times
Reputation: 658

Advertisements

^ 39 percent agreeing that a new terminal is the next big priority? That's pretty good, actually. Especially because you don't need a majority to agree with your priorities. You just need them to agree that it's worth doing. And it will happen soon enough.

But if it doesn't, the city will find a way around it. They shouldn't need a referendum on a project that doesn't cost the public a dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2017, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,661 posts, read 1,772,194 times
Reputation: 2205
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
That's what your fiercely loyal (to the cause) team members would love to believe. But your fiercely loyal team members are still outnumbered.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascit...esults/9641212

Mayor Sly James pulls plug on 2016 election on KCI improvements | The Kansas City Star
One, I said "flyers," not "Kansas Citians"; the two sets overlap but are not congruent;

Two, it's 2017, and as the chair of the City Council's Airport Committee has said to several of us who have spoken to her, some of those Kansas Citians opposed the new terminal on cost rather than sentiment, and those people are persuadable - once they learn that it won't cost them, they will go along with the project. And there are probably some who have that sentimental attachment who might just change their minds once they too learn it won't cost the city, because

Three, who's the airport supposed to serve? Kansas Citians who don't fly, or those who do? Kansas Citians who don't fly, or visitors and expats like me who do fly into Kansas City (or would like to if the airport had more and better service)? It should be designed to serve those latter populations.

And four, most of the city's residents said last year that the next big priority should be fixing the city's deteriorating infrastructure. They'll get a chance to sign off on doing that on April 4; this ballot question is one of the reasons the city pulled airport reconstruction off the table last year. City Hall can put it back on afterwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
^ 39 percent agreeing that a new terminal is the next big priority? That's pretty good, actually. Especially because you don't need a majority to agree with your priorities. You just need them to agree that it's worth doing. And it will happen soon enough.

But if it doesn't, the city will find a way around it. They shouldn't need a referendum on a project that doesn't cost the public a dime.
39% is the opinion of frequent voters, not frequent flyers. Only 18% of KCMO voters even use KCI and it's even less for frequent voters (elderly etc), which tend to vote down new projects or taxes.

Just another reason why KCI should not have to ask voters for permission to issue bonds to improve itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 11:25 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,661 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
One, I said "flyers," not "Kansas Citians"; the two sets overlap but are not congruent;

Two, it's 2017, and as the chair of the City Council's Airport Committee has said to several of us who have spoken to her, some of those Kansas Citians opposed the new terminal on cost rather than sentiment, and those people are persuadable - once they learn that it won't cost them, they will go along with the project. And there are probably some who have that sentimental attachment who might just change their minds once they too learn it won't cost the city, because

Three, who's the airport supposed to serve? Kansas Citians who don't fly, or those who do? Kansas Citians who don't fly, or visitors and expats like me who do fly into Kansas City (or would like to if the airport had more and better service)? It should be designed to serve those latter populations.

And four, most of the city's residents said last year that the next big priority should be fixing the city's deteriorating infrastructure. They'll get a chance to sign off on doing that on April 4; this ballot question is one of the reasons the city pulled airport reconstruction off the table last year. City Hall can put it back on afterwards.
The fate of KCI should and will be decided upon in the same way almost everything else in life is decided upon - by the owners. And not by "progressively" opinionated out-of-towners, regardless of their past KC metro residency or not.

As a frequent flier in and out of KCI in the 80s, I loved the airport. Today I avoid all airports as a result of our nation losing its collective mind after 911 and turning them all into police states. It didn't have to happen and doesn't have to remain that way.

Fixing the hopelessly PC crippled political system that turned KCI from one of the most adored and highly praised to, reportedly, the object of widespread traveler scorn today could be done for about a billion dollars less than building an all-new terminal.

One of the things I admire most about Kansas Citians is that they don't need anyone else telling them what's good for them and couldn't care less what those others think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,661 posts, read 1,772,194 times
Reputation: 2205
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
The fate of KCI should and will be decided upon in the same way almost everything else in life is decided upon - by the owners. And not by "progressively" opinionated out-of-towners, regardless of their past KC metro residency or not.

As a frequent flier in and out of KCI in the 80s, I loved the airport. Today I avoid all airports as a result of our nation losing its collective mind after 911 and turning them all into police states. It didn't have to happen and doesn't have to remain that way.

Fixing the hopelessly PC crippled political system that turned KCI from one of the most adored and highly praised to, reportedly, the object of widespread traveler scorn today could be done for about a billion dollars less than building an all-new terminal.

One of the things I admire most about Kansas Citians is that they don't need anyone else telling them what's good for them and couldn't care less what those others think.
My politics (and I consider myself a "left-libertarian") have little to do with my opinion on this subject, unless you meant something else by "progressive" here, in which case I apologize for the misinterpretation.

And I actually agree with you about the worth of the security theater apparatus installed in the wake of 9/11. But we are apparently in the minority in this country.

My views on the new airport terminal are informed by that changed reality. It's not going away, so we need to deal with it.

If you avoid airports as a rule because of that foolishness, good for you, but given that it will remain in place, I'd like to suggest that the views of those who use them should carry greater weight.

One more thing: I've learned from nearly 40 years' residence in the Northeastern US that Kansas Citians, no matter where they live, love the city to death with an intensity I see in expats of few other cities - even those who in all likelihood will never live there again. (A good example of this among notable people is author Calvin Trillin, whose career includes a long stint as a regular columnist at the old Life magazine and an even longer one as a contributor to The New Yorker. He lives in that city, but in a wonderful Father's Day essay he wrote in that magazine in the early 1990s where he reflected at length on his youth in Kansas City, he concluded by saying that most fathers have a "theme" for raising their children, and his for his daughter was, "Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, you are being raised in Kansas City.")

I was absolutely thrilled to see how lively the city had become in the more than a decade since I last visited it when I returned in 2014 to see my fam with a good friend who reports for The Kansas City Star's parent in tow (that visit ultimately led to this feature and three sidebars I wrote for Next City). The main thing keeping me in Philadelphia now, besides my inertia-driven career decision-making path and the many friendships I have developed here, is the lack of a subway in Kansas City, but I also know that the city's neither large nor dense enough to support one; I'd like to see the streetcar extended, but if that doesn't happen, I won't shed tears and I will come back to visit.

The airport is another matter entirely. If it's not improved, I will continue to fly into it, but not only Councilwoman Justus but a travel industry insider I know here who confirms that Kansas City has indeed become a hot tourist destination lead me to conclude that its current state is holding back its growth and development, and by extension that of the city and region as a whole. I want KC to advance, not stagnate as the city I now live in had done for decades prior to 1990, so I'm going to lend my voice in support of those things that I believe will advance it, even from a perch 1300 miles away.

May I suggest this to you, since I doubt anything I might say about KCI as it is will persuade you? Read as much as you can about the only other drive-to-your-gate airport ever built, Dallas/Fort Worth International, whose original design was KCI on steroids. There are two crucial design differences that have enabled DFW to remain popular enough with travelers post-security theater:
  • Deeper terminal buildings.
  • Separate levels and roads for arrivals and departures.

That second item is found in almost every large airport now (I think LAX may be one of the few exceptions), and I think that the failure to incorporate those into the original KC design is what's made it so cramped now. I've seen the alternate plans for fixing KCI, and I know that separate arrivals facilities and approach roads were part of the other two (costlier) plans, both of which would keep the existing terminals in use. Maybe too many people at 414 E. 12th have committed themselves to the cheaper alternative (which should be no surprise) to make this a possiblity now, but should it go down, maybe one of these should be dusted off and offered to the various stakeholders as an alternative.

Footnote: Fear, not "political correctness," drove the official reaction to the World Trade Center attacks. (Though from what I understand, El Al, the national airline of Israel, maintains an excellent security record with none of this apparatus, and it [and Israeli airports] do so through sophisticated use of profiling. Maybe that's what you were referring to? The problem in the US is that our approach to profiling has been, and no doubt would have been had we gone down that path, unsophisticated and ham-handed.)

Last edited by MarketStEl; 03-24-2017 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 12:55 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 984,056 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
The fate of KCI should and will be decided upon in the same way almost everything else in life is decided upon - by the owners. And not by "progressively" opinionated out-of-towners, regardless of their past KC metro residency or not.

As a frequent flier in and out of KCI in the 80s, I loved the airport. Today I avoid all airports as a result of our nation losing its collective mind after 911 and turning them all into police states. It didn't have to happen and doesn't have to remain that way.

Fixing the hopelessly PC crippled political system that turned KCI from one of the most adored and highly praised to, reportedly, the object of widespread traveler scorn today could be done for about a billion dollars less than building an all-new terminal.

One of the things I admire most about Kansas Citians is that they don't need anyone else telling them what's good for them and couldn't care less what those others think.
"Keep Kansas City's airport exactly as it is!"

...said the Bay Area resident who avoids airports altogether.

"Kansas Citians shouldn't care about the opinions of outsiders. Except mine."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 01:31 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
"Keep Kansas City's airport exactly as it is!"

...said the Bay Area resident who avoids airports altogether.

"Kansas Citians shouldn't care about the opinions of outsiders. Except mine."
But CrownVic really isn't an outsider. He likes Kansas City and Kansas Citians. Others just come here to tell us how stupid we are for not being like wherever they are currently living now that they have moved somewhere more "vibrant" than Kansas City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 07:25 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,661 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
But CrownVic really isn't an outsider. He likes Kansas City and Kansas Citians. Others just come here to tell us how stupid we are for not being like wherever they are currently living now that they have moved somewhere more "vibrant" than Kansas City.
Thank you, luzianne.

To a degree, I'm still a Kansas Citian at heart after being gone 27 years. A somewhat unique set of circumstances has kept me here much longer than I ever thought possible.

I continue to be amused by the "progressive" commentary here (MarketStEl, please know that I'm not including you or referring to you here. I'll answer you separately when I have more time) that attempts to sell KC's greatest strengths to the very young and gullible as huge drawbacks and negatives. Bravo, Kansas City, for knowing better and having the guts to stand your ground against the "progressive" intimidation machine that has ruined most of the nation's mega-metros.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2017, 09:18 PM
 
519 posts, read 468,380 times
Reputation: 325
I do like CrownVic95 and Luzianne thoughts behind their postings. On the airport I do agree with MarketStEl and KCMO, about the need for a new terminal. Many reasons a single terminal needs built, centralized luggage, centralize screening, centralized parking, centralized terminal drop off and pick up. The way the terminals were built above ground and below street level, was for each airline to operate as if they had their own airport from their own ticketing to baggage above and below. Southwest is the biggest operator and will be the biggest operator. I don't see the other airlines ever using KCI as more than a spoke. I wonder if it would be possible to build a 15 gate terminal for Southwest, or Southwest builds their own terminal, kind of like what they have in St Louis, and leave the rest of the airlines in Terminal B and C? For legitimate, serious, sound and wise reasons, we will alway have and need TSA and the screening we currently have become used to. I find nothing wrong with what we are asked to go through now to board a plane and grateful we have the DHS/TSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2017, 05:35 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,661 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
My politics (and I consider myself a "left-libertarian") have little to do with my opinion on this subject, unless you meant something else by "progressive" here, in which case I apologize for the misinterpretation.

And I actually agree with you about the worth of the security theater apparatus installed in the wake of 9/11. But we are apparently in the minority in this country.

My views on the new airport terminal are informed by that changed reality. It's not going away, so we need to deal with it.

If you avoid airports as a rule because of that foolishness, good for you, but given that it will remain in place, I'd like to suggest that the views of those who use them should carry greater weight.

One more thing: I've learned from nearly 40 years' residence in the Northeastern US that Kansas Citians, no matter where they live, love the city to death with an intensity I see in expats of few other cities - even those who in all likelihood will never live there again. (A good example of this among notable people is author Calvin Trillin, whose career includes a long stint as a regular columnist at the old Life magazine and an even longer one as a contributor to The New Yorker. He lives in that city, but in a wonderful Father's Day essay he wrote in that magazine in the early 1990s where he reflected at length on his youth in Kansas City, he concluded by saying that most fathers have a "theme" for raising their children, and his for his daughter was, "Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, you are being raised in Kansas City.")

I was absolutely thrilled to see how lively the city had become in the more than a decade since I last visited it when I returned in 2014 to see my fam with a good friend who reports for The Kansas City Star's parent in tow (that visit ultimately led to this feature and three sidebars I wrote for Next City). The main thing keeping me in Philadelphia now, besides my inertia-driven career decision-making path and the many friendships I have developed here, is the lack of a subway in Kansas City, but I also know that the city's neither large nor dense enough to support one; I'd like to see the streetcar extended, but if that doesn't happen, I won't shed tears and I will come back to visit.

The airport is another matter entirely. If it's not improved, I will continue to fly into it, but not only Councilwoman Justus but a travel industry insider I know here who confirms that Kansas City has indeed become a hot tourist destination lead me to conclude that its current state is holding back its growth and development, and by extension that of the city and region as a whole. I want KC to advance, not stagnate as the city I now live in had done for decades prior to 1990, so I'm going to lend my voice in support of those things that I believe will advance it, even from a perch 1300 miles away.

May I suggest this to you, since I doubt anything I might say about KCI as it is will persuade you? Read as much as you can about the only other drive-to-your-gate airport ever built, Dallas/Fort Worth International, whose original design was KCI on steroids. There are two crucial design differences that have enabled DFW to remain popular enough with travelers post-security theater:
  • Deeper terminal buildings.
  • Separate levels and roads for arrivals and departures.

That second item is found in almost every large airport now (I think LAX may be one of the few exceptions), and I think that the failure to incorporate those into the original KC design is what's made it so cramped now. I've seen the alternate plans for fixing KCI, and I know that separate arrivals facilities and approach roads were part of the other two (costlier) plans, both of which would keep the existing terminals in use. Maybe too many people at 414 E. 12th have committed themselves to the cheaper alternative (which should be no surprise) to make this a possiblity now, but should it go down, maybe one of these should be dusted off and offered to the various stakeholders as an alternative.

Footnote: Fear, not "political correctness," drove the official reaction to the World Trade Center attacks. (Though from what I understand, El Al, the national airline of Israel, maintains an excellent security record with none of this apparatus, and it [and Israeli airports] do so through sophisticated use of profiling. Maybe that's what you were referring to? The problem in the US is that our approach to profiling has been, and no doubt would have been had we gone down that path, unsophisticated and ham-handed.)
First, let me just say that I enjoy reading your posts - at least most of them. The exceptions are those where you seem to get swept up in and sucked under by the turbulent currents generated by others here known for pontificating viewpoints fundamentally similar to yours, but lacking anything close to your eloquence. You are one of few writers with whom I can disagree often and yet maintain a level of respect. The reference to "progressively" opinionated out-of-towners was not intended for you as much as it was for the others mentioned above.

As for "My views on the new airport terminal are informed by that changed reality. It's not going away, so we need to deal with it.", this surprises me coming from you, given that you indicate that you understand the folly that is this knee-jerk draconian reaction to 911. You are also old enough to know well that it didn't use to be this way and intelligent enough to understand that the only thing keeping it so is the petrified thought process incapable of outputting anything but that which is highlighted in blue.

The same was oft said in Prohibition's early days and guess what? It went away. The notion that a practice and policy so contrary to US Constitutional intent and so unfathomable so recently in our lifetimes cannot go away is simply ludicrous. And you know that.

You also know as well as I do that, no later than the billow of smoke had cleared from the World Trade Center site, the number one priority in our national response became ensuring that we offended no Muslims with any action taken. A PC lie needed to be shouted to the world. What better way to do that than very publicly pulling aside grannies from Cedar Rapids for pat-downs and feel-ups, while also very publicly ignoring young men fitting the profile that nearly every single terrorist perp has fit since this nightmare of Islamic terror exploded upon us. Security? Security be damned....that's not the purpose of this charade nor of the TSA. And the grannies won't mind - too much. After all, they were fitted for their PC straight-jackets years ago. They know they'd better keep their place. And - who knows? - if we throw enough appeasements against the wall, maybe we'll end up with one less suicide attack this fall. Humiliation of the "privileged" is a small price to pay, right?

Reality has proven the exact opposite....and wise men have known and understood this for centuries.
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