Southwest is practically begging KC to let the airport build a new terminal (St. Louis: real estate market, square footage)

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by elkotronics

Our son, who stayed behind in Kansas City after the Mrs. and I moved to eastern Washington state, just scored a gig passing out fliers to people in KC encouraging them to vote yes for the Airport Bill on November 7th. The gig will not last long but it is for a good cause. Let's hope it passes - KCI could use an upgrade, eh?

They even had George Brett doing a radio plug for a new airport.


But I was listening to a KC radio program yesterday or today, can't remember which, and most of the people calling in were saying NO to a new airport. They were saying basically that the city is letting the airport fall into disrepair at the same time they are campaigning for a new airport.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by SPonteKC

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes I do. There has been a discussion about this before on this forum. Where do you think the people who are being pushed out of urban areas are going to go? They have to go somewhere.

[lovekcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Yes I do. There has been a discussion about this before on this forum. Where do you think the people who are being pushed out of urban areas are going to go? They have to go somewhere.

there are places for low income invidivuales pretty much everywhere. Plus, families should take care of their members in need.

[Ztonyg]

Originally Posted by luzianne

They even had George Brett doing a radio plug for a new airport.


But I was listening to a KC radio program yesterday or today, can't remember which, and most of the people calling in were saying NO to a new airport. They were saying basically that the city is letting the airport fall into disrepair at the same time they are campaigning for a new airport.

The city is caught between a rock and a hard place. The existing terminal complex is functionally obsolete so throwing a lot of money at it would be a poor financial investment.

Whether or not this vote fails KCI will receive a new terminal within the next 5-10 years. That's simply a fact of life. Neither the airlines nor the federal government will invest money in the existing terminal complex.

The problem is that in 5-10 years it will cost significantly more to build a new terminal than it will now. Plus, the city will be stuck with an obsolete terminal that is an impediment to economic development for another 5-10 years.

KCI is a terrible first impression to anyone visiting the Kansas City area. How anyone is not embarrassed by it is beyond me. There are nicer Grayhound bus terminals.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Where do YOU believe lower income people should live? Because with all the gentrification, they are being pushed out. I don't think you really care about THEM, just your urban renewal agenda.

I realize you didn't ask me, but:

One of the biggest problems we face as a society is the growing gap between rich and poor - the Twenty Percent have managed to snag more than all the gains the economy has made since not only the Great Recession (Great Depression II) but for most of the fat years before it.

One of the reasons more poor people stay poor now is because they live in areas of concentrated poverty, cut off from the opportunities and assets that lie not far away.

Much of the research I've read on gentrification suggests that the worries and anger about it are misplaced. For starters, it doesn't displace people at a faster rate than the usual process of population turnover in a neighborhood (even in poor neighborhoods, roughly one-third of residents move elsewhere over a given period of time); the only difference is that the newcomers are better off. Second, low-income residents of a gentrifying neighborhood who don't move end up doing better themselves than those who remain in a low-income neighborhood. Third, it offers low-income homeowners the chance to finally realize a return on their investment in their homes as house values appreciate. The issue with these homeowners is coming up with ways to keep them from being forced to sell when the property taxes rise. The only people who really get screwed are the renters.

But what all this also says to me is that income diversity in city neighborhoods is a desirable goal, as it will bring with it improved connections to the opportunities and assets the more affluent enjoy and thus increase upward mobility.

But for a number of reasons, including our tendency to make the poor into Them, this idea either meets with resistance among the better off or doesn't even enter the conversation. (The co-authors of the CityLab essay I've linked here are a leftish professor at Berkeley who heads a center for a "fair and inclusive society" and the president of the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, a public policy think tank in Washington. They both belong to something called the US Partnership on Mobility from Poverty.)

So my answer to the question is: In the same neighborhoods where the affluent live.

This was more likely to be the case in the 19th century, when often the service folks who tended to the cares of the well-to-do lived on the back alleys behind the grand houses on the main avenues.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Where do YOU believe lower income people should live? Because with all the gentrification, they are being pushed out. I don't think you really care about THEM, just your urban renewal agenda.

I was about to answer your question, but then changed my mind when you started cutting me down personally.

I don't think you have any basis for assuming whether I care about lower income people.

[elkotronics]

It sounds like Kansas City as a whole has a 500-lb. elephant in the area, knows it, but doesn't want ta deal with it. It needs to deal with it. I don't understand - I know it's going to involve a lot of money. That's a given. Is Kansas City, MO, balking at it because they won't be getting any help from the Kansas side (Johnson County, in particular)? So it's become a big political juggernaut.

To me, that's still not dealing with your business. Kansas City, MO, needs to deal with it's business. I'd do it now. Why wait? It's going to hurt, but like lifting weights or exercising, in the long run, it's going to benefit you. In this scenario, it'll benefit the entire region. Maybe Kansas can lift a huge basket of help with it, because they'll be benefiting from it quite a bit, right?

Wouldn't you know it, this 'ole Bushwacker war would raise it's ugly head again!

[kcmo]

KCI does not need help from Kansas just like it doesn't get help from Missouri. It's not funded like that. It's self sustained and self funded.

Kansas is broke, their economy is toast, the idea of them building something that costly that already exist in the metro is laughable. An airport in Kansas would cost way more than a billion dollars. The FAA would not give them a dime, the airlines wouldn't do it either, they would just stay at KCI and continue using it they way they do now (as a regional airport). There are thousands of hotel rooms near KCI, it's only 20 minutes from Downtown. The airport is not going relocate and neither are the airlines. KCI just wouldn't grow much or reach its potential in the KC market if they didn't replace the terminal that's all.

KCI just needs to be allowed to build a new terminal, not a whole new airport. KCI needs to get out from under the voters. For some reason, everybody in KC is an aviation expert and knows the ins and outs of the business of aviation and airports. It's a city of 470,000 airport designers and aviation experts I guess even though only 18% of voters even fly.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by kcmo

KCI does not need help from Kansas just like it doesn't get help from Missouri. It's not funded like that. It's self sustained and self funded.

Kansas is broke, their economy is toast, the idea of them building something that costly that already exist in the metro is laughable. An airport in Kansas would cost way more than a billion dollars. The FAA would not give them a dime, the airlines wouldn't do it either, they would just stay at KCI and continue using it they way they do now (as a regional airport). There are thousands of hotel rooms near KCI, it's only 20 minutes from Downtown. The airport is not going relocate and neither are the airlines. KCI just wouldn't grow much or reach its potential in the KC market if they didn't replace the terminal that's all.

KCI just needs to be allowed to build a new terminal, not a whole new airport. KCI needs to get out from under the voters. For some reason, everybody in KC is an aviation expert and knows the ins and outs of the business of aviation and airports. It's a city of 470,000 airport designers and aviation experts I guess even though only 18% of voters even fly.

To me, you seem like the one who thinks you are an expert on what the FAA likes/dislikes/will do, what the airlines like/dislike/will do and what Amazon likes/dislikes/will do. You might be surprised.

[brooksider2brooklyn]

Originally Posted by luzianne

To me, you seem like the one who thinks you are an expert on what the FAA likes/dislikes/will do, what the airlines like/dislike/will do and what Amazon likes/dislikes/will do. You might be surprised.

Why do you constantly troll this user KCMO?

KC need a new terminal and if the people of KC don't see that then they don't know the first thing about the business of airports.

Amazon is a liberal and very urban oriented company. Even if they choose a suburban location, it will be more urban than anything in Kansas.

It takes about ten minutes and the internet to understand both of these topics.

You honestly think Amazon would even consider JOCounty? They probably won't even consider KC,Mo with that airport and the fight it's taking to get it upgraded.