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 05-23-2017, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
481 posts, read 580,686 times
Reputation: 360

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DallastoChicagotoKC View Post
I completely agree with KCMO on this point (except for the cheap part -- I don't think it's about being cheap for most people. But for some outspoken people it is. There are very vocal groups that are against KCMO making any investment in itself with tax dollars). I don't know if you've ever lived anywhere else. But complacency and fear of change are rampant here compared to other places I've lived. Sure, there are exceptions. But realizing those exceptions is like pulling teeth.


I've lived in a few other cities, Wichita and St. Louis, and there are NIMBY/Anti-tax/Anti-development groups in those cities as well. The Plaza NIMBY's are the most annoying here, they need to be squashed. The group fighting the convention hotel are just fighting it out of spite. They won't stop it and they know but they are delaying it, which is only hurting the city by missing out of pre-booked conventions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2017, 11:55 AM
 
112 posts, read 62,035 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Excuse me?

This was a pretty decent post until you flushed it down the toilet with that remark. It is blatantly and flagrantly false....never have I posted anything on this forum - or anywhere else, for that matter - that would give you cause to even wonder about that. I am as far removed from the infantile "border war" nonsense as a person can be.

It is the leap of the century to jump from my stated strong preference for the suburban over urban living environment to "hatred for Missouri". Ridiculous.

Ok. My apologies, then. I thought I recalled reading quite a few posts in which you discussed stereotypical negative views people have about urban areas and attributed that in part to being in Missouri. You certainly give the impression that you don't find there to be anything redeeming about the Missouri side of the Metro. But if that's not the case, I apologize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 12:25 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,668 posts, read 5,647,038 times
Reputation: 7512
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallastoChicagotoKC View Post
Ok. My apologies, then. I thought I recalled reading quite a few posts in which you discussed stereotypical negative views people have about urban areas and attributed that in part to being in Missouri. You certainly give the impression that you don't find there to be anything redeeming about the Missouri side of the Metro. But if that's not the case, I apologize.
Apology accepted.

What I don't find anything redeeming about is urban living - has nothing to do with any given state. Missouri has an abundance of other options....clearly most of the state is not urban. So there are, no doubt, lots of environs in Missouri that I would enjoy - outside of the months of May - September, that is. I am very outspokenly uncomfortable with the summer weather throughout that region.

Thank you....I'm glad we got that straightened out. I enjoy most of your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,101 posts, read 1,306,134 times
Reputation: 1358
Interesting thread.

Another KC native here, about the same age as the OP. The East Side is actually getting some action and momentum now, especially between Hospital Hill and Brush Creek. But it is important to understand how the trends during the period described, the 1970s-1980s, were rooted in events from the 1960s, particularly the effects of the KCMOSD failure to integrate.

When you meet people who were born in the 1940s in KC, they generally attended one of the center city high schools -- Lincoln, Manual, West, East and Central for the black population; Paseo, Westport, Northeast, Southeast and Southwest for the white population. A small subset attended suburban high schools, mostly in KCK.

When you meet people born 20 years later in the 1960s (so attending high school in the 1970s-1980s), you find almost no white kids at any of the center city KC high schools. This generation was educated almost universally at suburban high schools (the southern KC districts and the five SM high schools plus Raytown, Independence, and the Northland districts).

The KCMOSD did not manage the integration of its schools well, and this was exacerbated by the build-out of suburbia. In my opinion, this extreme case of almost complete white depopulation in the schools determined the fate of urban KC for several decades. If residents with school-aged children are not invested in public education, there is not a lot of reason for them to invest in the other urban social assets -- the jobs follow the housing, which follows the "good" schools.

The fact that Kansas City held onto its vibrant communities south of the Plaza despite the deteriorating public schools underscores my point -- if not for Barstow, Rockhurst, Pembroke Hill, Sion, etc., I think the abandonment would have been even more dramatic.

I further feel that the resistance of the KCMOSD to any competition continues to hold back the city core. The district refuses even to sell their empty school structures (they prefer to demolish!) to private entities for the exact use for which the buildings were originally designed. A healthy urban core has plenty of affordable educational options, not a monolithic and intransigent district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 02:24 PM
 
112 posts, read 62,035 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Interesting thread.

Another KC native here, about the same age as the OP. The East Side is actually getting some action and momentum now, especially between Hospital Hill and Brush Creek. But it is important to understand how the trends during the period described, the 1970s-1980s, were rooted in events from the 1960s, particularly the effects of the KCMOSD failure to integrate.

When you meet people who were born in the 1940s in KC, they generally attended one of the center city high schools -- Lincoln, Manual, West, East and Central for the black population; Paseo, Westport, Northeast, Southeast and Southwest for the white population. A small subset attended suburban high schools, mostly in KCK.

When you meet people born 20 years later in the 1960s (so attending high school in the 1970s-1980s), you find almost no white kids at any of the center city KC high schools. This generation was educated almost universally at suburban high schools (the southern KC districts and the five SM high schools plus Raytown, Independence, and the Northland districts).

The KCMOSD did not manage the integration of its schools well, and this was exacerbated by the build-out of suburbia. In my opinion, this extreme case of almost complete white depopulation in the schools determined the fate of urban KC for several decades. If residents with school-aged children are not invested in public education, there is not a lot of reason for them to invest in the other urban social assets -- the jobs follow the housing, which follows the "good" schools.

The fact that Kansas City held onto its vibrant communities south of the Plaza despite the deteriorating public schools underscores my point -- if not for Barstow, Rockhurst, Pembroke Hill, Sion, etc., I think the abandonment would have been even more dramatic.

I further feel that the resistance of the KCMOSD to any competition continues to hold back the city core. The district refuses even to sell their empty school structures (they prefer to demolish!) to private entities for the exact use for which the buildings were originally designed. A healthy urban core has plenty of affordable educational options, not a monolithic and intransigent district.
Schools are definitely important. So don't take this as minimizing them. But other cities have managed to grow and develop despite having bad schools. Dallas is one example I'm familiar with. Those cities attract lots of young professionals without kids. Sure, there is a constant turnover because the young people eventually have kids who need schools. But as long as that turnover keeps going, there is new development. Kansas City does not attract young professionals very well. That's a huge problem. And one that KC is trying to deal with in part by offering vibrant urban living options, which young professionals like. As a community, we need to continue to support those efforts even if we (like me) don't currently live in urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 06:29 PM
 
482 posts, read 216,755 times
Reputation: 1182
Quote:
Originally Posted by DallastoChicagotoKC View Post
I am completely fine with the idea of KCMO outpacing JoCo in job growth, etc, if that is happening in urban areas. I prefer it. I would love for Sprint or Cerner to move downtown. If not, I'm neutral. A shopping center or office building in Liberty or Parkville does no more for the metro than one in Olathe.
You have a point there. Generally I'd opt for new jobs going to the Missouri side. However if it comes down to jobs that bring urban development to Kansas versus jobs that go to the Missouri suburbs, I'd have to take Kansas. Build up downtown KCK to near or better than the level of downtown KC, MO, then run light rail between the two? Whew, that'd be nice. But I'm clearly getting ahead of myself...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,513,697 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallasgoldrush View Post
You have a point there. Generally I'd opt for new jobs going to the Missouri side. However if it comes down to jobs that bring urban development to Kansas versus jobs that go to the Missouri suburbs, I'd have to take Kansas. Build up downtown KCK to near or better than the level of downtown KC, MO, then run light rail between the two? Whew, that'd be nice. But I'm clearly getting ahead of myself...
The only place in the entire metro where Cerner should have gotten 2 billion in incentives is Downtown KCK. Even downtown KCMO should not have to hand out that much to lure Cerner. maybe 75% of that tops.

The city should have gotten so much more in return out of the Bannister project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,513,697 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by shindig View Post
This is a prime example of you painting the entire city/metro with one broad brush stroke. This is a ridiculous statement. The citizens that live here just approved a $800m bond for infrastructure, roads and an animal shelter. We pay a 1% earnings tax. We have some of the highest sales taxes in the region if not the country (and on top of that, we pay high sales taxes on groceries). We also pay taxes on our vehicles, which you don't find in a lot of other regions. Oh and our water/sewer bills are skyrocketing because of $2b worth of new sewer and pipe lines that need replaced over the next 10 years. Yeah, you're right, we are cheap


And knock it off with the airport....there has never even been a vote for the people to decide, only some "preliminary polling" which is not the same as a vote.
You put way too much emphasis on "cheap" and not enough on "change". I know taxes are high there. I have mentioned it many times. I was actually surprised the bond issue passed. One of the reasons local sales taxes are so high is because nearly every place there has its own sales tax and too much of the local tax base relies on personal taxes because corporations and retail hardly pay anything. Missouri desperately needs more funding for roads and transit and can't get it. State and County taxes are relatively low in the KC area again pushing more of the responsibility to local sales taxes and property taxes. KC's biggest problem with taxes is the lack of regional taxing districts (The Zoo was a huge accomplishment though) and the fact that every commercial development in the metro is tffed, property tax abated, star bonded etc plus their own "community improvement tax".

However I won't shut up about KCI till they pass a plan to fix it. Anybody that wants to see a new terminal should do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2017, 08:00 PM
 
482 posts, read 216,755 times
Reputation: 1182
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Interesting thread.

Another KC native here, about the same age as the OP. The East Side is actually getting some action and momentum now, especially between Hospital Hill and Brush Creek. But it is important to understand how the trends during the period described, the 1970s-1980s, were rooted in events from the 1960s, particularly the effects of the KCMOSD failure to integrate.

When you meet people who were born in the 1940s in KC, they generally attended one of the center city high schools -- Lincoln, Manual, West, East and Central for the black population; Paseo, Westport, Northeast, Southeast and Southwest for the white population. A small subset attended suburban high schools, mostly in KCK.

When you meet people born 20 years later in the 1960s (so attending high school in the 1970s-1980s), you find almost no white kids at any of the center city KC high schools. This generation was educated almost universally at suburban high schools (the southern KC districts and the five SM high schools plus Raytown, Independence, and the Northland districts).

The KCMOSD did not manage the integration of its schools well, and this was exacerbated by the build-out of suburbia. In my opinion, this extreme case of almost complete white depopulation in the schools determined the fate of urban KC for several decades. If residents with school-aged children are not invested in public education, there is not a lot of reason for them to invest in the other urban social assets -- the jobs follow the housing, which follows the "good" schools.

The fact that Kansas City held onto its vibrant communities south of the Plaza despite the deteriorating public schools underscores my point -- if not for Barstow, Rockhurst, Pembroke Hill, Sion, etc., I think the abandonment would have been even more dramatic.

I further feel that the resistance of the KCMOSD to any competition continues to hold back the city core. The district refuses even to sell their empty school structures (they prefer to demolish!) to private entities for the exact use for which the buildings were originally designed. A healthy urban core has plenty of affordable educational options, not a monolithic and intransigent district.
Schools! Now there's a topic! It's no secret that KCPS (formerly KCMOSD) is a mess and has been for a very long time. No real way to spin it. Even considering the demographic challenges, to constantly toy with accreditation is extreme. I'd like to toss out a couple of ideas about how to fix it and get feedback.

1. Dissolve the district. See the article below. Was Van Horn really saved just by being adopted by the Independence district, and with minimal inconvenience to the students and their families? What rationale would anyone have for resisting an expansion of this model?

Rebirth of Van Horn High School is a sign of hope | The Kansas City Star

2. Build bigger schools. Reduce to one big high school if possible (aside from Lincoln Prep, a fine school that does not need help to compete). If they're not going to dissolve the district and will accept chronic under-performance from the vast majority of the students (which is already a morally questionable decision), at the very least the district should concentrate the resources it does have to fewer facilities so that each and every kid has access to those. In other words, in every huge high school there would have to be at least some good teachers. At least some advanced classes. Some sub-set of students who self-identify as potential leaders and are given all the nurturing they need to fulfill their potential.

Any thoughts on that or other ideas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2017, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
481 posts, read 580,686 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
You put way too much emphasis on "cheap" and not enough on "change". I know taxes are high there. I have mentioned it many times. I was actually surprised the bond issue passed. One of the reasons local sales taxes are so high is because nearly every place there has its own sales tax and too much of the local tax base relies on personal taxes because corporations and retail hardly pay anything. Missouri desperately needs more funding for roads and transit and can't get it. State and County taxes are relatively low in the KC area again pushing more of the responsibility to local sales taxes and property taxes. KC's biggest problem with taxes is the lack of regional taxing districts (The Zoo was a huge accomplishment though) and the fact that every commercial development in the metro is tffed, property tax abated, star bonded etc plus their own "community improvement tax".

However I won't shut up about KCI till they pass a plan to fix it. Anybody that wants to see a new terminal should do the same.
I get that too many developers are still looking for handouts and I'm not sure what the City should do about it except deny those requests. But then what happens? Development stops? I don't know. Even the two hotels in CC are now asking for a CIT for renovations. I mean they own the property, they should spend their own $ to renovate, it's not like the hotels are a public asset. I don't ask for a handout when I want to remodel my kitchen in my house.


And I fully support a single terminal, quite honestly I wish the City would just push it forward and let a vote happen, while educating the public on why it needs replaced. The "tone" of your post made it sound like the citizens had voted it down multiple times when in reality we haven't had a vote. Most people I talk to through work or social settings are ready for a new terminal and see the benefits it would bring and quite honestly are tired of the City dragging its feet.
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
Similar Threads
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