U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 11-04-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,661 posts, read 5,643,038 times
Reputation: 7505

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkotronics View Post
Requiring the approval of voters just to upgrade or replace an existing terminal should not even be required in the first place especially since the airport itself does not even rely on public taxpayer dollars in order to operate (it instead generates revenue from landing/parking fees, leases to stores and restaurants, etc so people who don't use it don't pay for it in the first place and in most cases it actually generates more revenue). Every major airport in the country is not required to have to get voter approval just to expand or replace their terminal building which makes the situation even more ridiculous.

After reading the above, if this vote fails, I will lose major respect for the people in the KC Metro. This thing should pass with a resounding yes.
Good that you made that clear ahead of the election, so that the voters can factor that in their decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2017, 01:49 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Quote:
Originally Posted by crownvic95 View Post
good that you made that clear ahead of the election, so that the voters can factor that in their decision.

lol!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2017, 05:14 PM
 
519 posts, read 468,380 times
Reputation: 325
If the vote passes, one thing the city should do is get the airport out of control of the residents of the city. KC residents are at 12% of the users of the airport, in ten years it could possibly be less. Why ???? is it allowed for the city of 88% non users control/dictate the airports future?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2017, 06:07 AM
 
1,298 posts, read 984,056 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
I'm not upset that a lot of the metro doesn't have a say. It is what it is. But ideally, if it is a public vote, I think it should be a regional vote that includes all counties in the KC metro.
Sure, but why draw the line at just those inside the metro? KCI draws people from a third of Missouri, half of Kansas and pieces of Nebraska and Iowa. Many of those people, like me, never use any other airport. And many of them use it more than most of those who are actually eligible to vote in this referendum.

While we're at it, let's include those who regularly connect through KCI (even though it's not much of a hub, and that's the problem.) I think the lack of input from those people is what keeps it stuck in the past. Layovers are the worst thing about that airport, and yet the people laying over are apparently the ones whose opinions matter the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2017, 07:38 AM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Sure, but why draw the line at just those inside the metro? .

Because that's just stupid and you know it. And if we put it in Johnson County and only let Johnson County vote on it, people on the Missouri side would have a fit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2017, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,661 posts, read 1,772,194 times
Reputation: 2205
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
If the vote passes, one thing the city should do is get the airport out of control of the residents of the city. KC residents are at 12% of the users of the airport, in ten years it could possibly be less. Why ???? is it allowed for the city of 88% non users control/dictate the airports future?
Because the airport is owned by the city, and the bonds used to pay for improvements to it must be issued by the city, even if no city tax revenues go towards retiring them.

Missouri law requires voter approval for such bonds.

There's now a port authority in KC that didn't exist when the airport was built. I don't know what requirements would apply were it to issue bonds, but I keep hearing that transferring ownership of the airport to Port KC (the port authority) would be a solution to the bond-referendum issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
This is one of the the most important votes in the history of KC IMO. If the voters vote this down, I can see where the airlines will just say F it and throttle KC down to the bare minimum of flights the locals will support without connecting flights etc and just move on. KC would just become another expensive regional city with very few flight options (think Omaha or OKC or something). I just don't see the airlines wanting to play this game with KC voters much longer, especially when they are saying they will basically foot the bill. There are plenty of other cities that would be much more interested in such an investment in their community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
481 posts, read 580,373 times
Reputation: 360
I voted Yes. Seems a lot of people in the Waldo/Brookside area really support a new terminal. There have been a lot of yard signs for a Better KCI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by shindig View Post
I voted Yes. Seems a lot of people in the Waldo/Brookside area really support a new terminal. There have been a lot of yard signs for a Better KCI.
Yea, but city wide votes in KC tend to be very unpredictable. A lot of people end up voting on things they know nothing about or don't care about. People on the east side, far east side, far south side and northland will all probably vote no.

I would be very surprised if it passed. It reminds me of the light rail vote (city backed plan, not the Chastain plans). It was supposed to be close too, but the actual regular voters outside the core just destroyed it.

I think it will fail and KCI will continue to suck for at least another 5-7 years while the city regroups and comes up with a plan B. I hope it passes, but because I don't live there and only use it a few times a year now, I don't really care. It would be pretty heartbreaking though. KC would really be shooting itself in the foot economically...again if it fails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2017, 05:46 PM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Yea, but city wide votes in KC tend to be very unpredictable. A lot of people end up voting on things they know nothing about or don't care about. People on the east side, far east side, far south side and northland will all probably vote no.

I would be very surprised if it passed. It reminds me of the light rail vote (city backed plan, not the Chastain plans). It was supposed to be close too, but the actual regular voters outside the core just destroyed it.

I think it will fail and KCI will continue to suck for at least another 5-7 years while the city regroups and comes up with a plan B. I hope it passes, but because I don't live there and only use it a few times a year now, I don't really care. It would be pretty heartbreaking though. KC would really be shooting itself in the foot economically...again if it fails.
I pulled up a sample ballot to see exactly what the voters were going to be seeing. Here it is:


Shall the City of Kansas City be authorized to construct a new passenger terminal at Kansas City International Airport and demolish the existing terminals as necessary, with all costs paid solely from the revenues derived from the City from the operation of its airports and related facilities, and without the issuance of general airport revenue bonds unless such general airport revenue bonds have received prior voter approval?


I think "unless such general airport revenue bonds have received prior voter approval" would cause some people to vote "no" because it makes it sound like down road they are going to be asked to approve general airport revenue bonds.
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