Another potential huge state/county/city funded project in KCK. Topeka starting to get nervous though... (Overland: employment, buying)

[kcmo]

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascit...f&t=1455632769

Topeka may be finally figuring out that the state can't fund every development on the Kansas side of the KC area. They have already had second thoughts about letting developers use STAR bonds for the Brookridge development in Overland Park (although they will still likely approve it).

This quote pretty much says it all...

“God, we’re dead broke,” Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, said. “This is beginning to border on financial malpractice.

While she may be one of the only ones, at least one senator is starting to see how absurd this is.

This is actually a case where I'm okay with Kansas poaching something from KCMO. The American Royal and those that run the American Royal don't seem to fit anymore with KCMO. KCMO doesn't have the room in its urban core to have acres and acres of parking lots that would sit around unused for 360 days a year just for a BBQ. (American Royal finally made a wise choice to move that to the Sport Complex, although it will likely move to kck if this is built). And the city has already spent tens of millions on American Royal infrastructure including the American Royal arena and Kemper Arena. The Kempers are the main reason the city spent money on remodeling Kemper Arena rather than putting that toward a new arena. What a waste of money that was. And now the American Royal wants to tear down Kemper to put up a 5000 seat barn?

It's time to let the American Royal go to KCK where they can get the state to build them whatever they want and they have the room to do it. Let Kansas fund them and let the West Bottoms naturally redevelop and gentrify like the rest of Downtown. I'm confident that even though Kansas is broke, that they will allow STAR bonds and TIFS and overlay taxes to fund this arena, museum, and whatever else.

PS, a 5000 seat hockey arena and children's museum would be nice for the downtown KCK riverfront, but we all know this will go out in the middle of nowhere with everything else in Kansas.

[PA650]

I just saw this article this morning. With Brownback having decimated the state budget, I'm not sure this is such a prudent decision.

Also, does this mean they're not bringing another hockey team to Kemper? I guess that development team wants to get as much money from Kansas taxpayers to fund their venture.

[luzianne]

Like Missouri doesn't do the same thing?

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Like Missouri doesn't do the same thing?

Missouri isn't broke. It's not exactly chugging along economically, but Kansas is in a free-fall. The good news is you are winning the race to the bottom. The trophy is replacing Alabama as the laughingstock of the nation.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by s.davis

Missouri isn't broke. It's not exactly chugging along economically, but Kansas is in a free-fall. The good news is you are winning the race to the bottom. The trophy is replacing Alabama as the laughingstock of the nation.

Well, Missouri's unemployment rate is much higher than Kansas'. Explain that. The number of people on public assistance in Missouri is much higher than Kansas. Explain that.


I don't think Kansas is really broke. Lowering taxes on businesses means more businesses in Kansas/more jobs for Kansas/more residents of Kansas/larger tax base. It may take some time to see the effects, but it works.


Maybe Missouri isn't "broke" because it receives so much money from the federal government. States least dependent on the federal government: Kansas is #5 and Missouri is #38. That says a whole lot. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/


But the point of the original post was state/county/city funded projects. And Missouri does the same thing.

[Anzacosf]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Well, Missouri's unemployment rate is much higher than Kansas'. Explain that. The number of people on public assistance in Missouri is much higher than Kansas. Explain that.


I don't think Kansas is really broke. Lowering taxes on businesses means more businesses in Kansas/more jobs for Kansas/more residents of Kansas/larger tax base. It may take some time to see the effects, but it works.


Maybe Missouri isn't "broke" because it receives so much money from the federal government. States least dependent on the federal government: Kansas is #5 and Missouri is #38. That says a whole lot. [URL]https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/[/URL]


But the point of the original post was state/county/city funded projects. And Missouri does the same thing.

I hope you know Missouri has 3+ times more people than Kansas so therefore it s a percentage and even though it s 3.4+% Kansas vs a 4.3+% Missouri so in the end, that does not mean anything. Missouri has far more fortune 500 and 1000 companies versus Kansas and this is what economic projections are about, not poaching another state with which you share a metro. That does not give you a good projection so sooner or later Kansas economy will implode.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Well, Missouri's unemployment rate is much higher than Kansas'. Explain that. The number of people on public assistance in Missouri is much higher than Kansas. Explain that.


I don't think Kansas is really broke. Lowering taxes on businesses means more businesses in Kansas/more jobs for Kansas/more residents of Kansas/larger tax base. It may take some time to see the effects, but it works.


Maybe Missouri isn't "broke" because it receives so much money from the federal government. States least dependent on the federal government: Kansas is #5 and Missouri is #38. That says a whole lot. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/


But the point of the original post was state/county/city funded projects. And Missouri does the same thing.

I could make a list of STAR bond projects where Kansas used excessive incentives. The list gets much longer if you add in PEAK incentives. Every single one of the Kansas projects subsidized by the state in the KC area are in far flung suburban greenfields and the money the state provided went to build and even furnish retail and office buildings.

Missouri while having an economy twice the size of Kansas has a tiny fraction of state subsidized projects that Kansas has. One two are in the KC area, both are redevelopment projects and neither were used to poaching anything from Kansas. The Power and Light District and the Cerner Campus and I don't even agree with the Cerner campus as currently designed.

While Missouri has done handed incentives, they do not do at at anywhere near the same level that Kansas does. Not even close. This is one reason why so many companies have crossed to KS from MO. Missouri just can't justify "buying" companies that already exist right across the state line. They have recently started playing the game though with Freightquote and Applebee's as a way to fight back, but they were forced to do something after 15 years of aggressive poaching from KS using PEAK incentives.

Kansas should save STAR bonds and PEAK for areas like downtown KCK, Mission Mall, KU Med, Indian Springs area etc. Not 135th street, Rennor Blvd, College Blvd, Village West etc. There is absolutely nothing similar to Prairie Fire (state subsidized suburban development) in the affluent suburbs of MO. A tiff to help widen nearby roads? sure. A local tif + STAR bonds, pluse PEAK, plus TDD overlay tax, plus land bought by county and handed over to developers? Um...no. That's pretty much only a Kansas thing compared to ANY state.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Well, Missouri's unemployment rate is much higher than Kansas'. Explain that. The number of people on public assistance in Missouri is much higher than Kansas. Explain that.

I assume the phrase "explain that" is simply intended as your rhetorical mic-drop. Because it's very easy to explain. When a state's governor treats the unemployed and disadvantaged people in his state with hostility, they tend to leave. And when they do, they leave for a nearby state that might treat them better, and has better employment opportunities. However when they arrive they might be on public assistance for awhile before they actually find work.

Don't fact check this, because I'm not saying this is the actual explanation. I'm just saying that, logically, it's very easy to explain. Besides the fact that the question at hand was the assertion that the Kansas state government is broke. Not which state has the better economy.

Originally Posted by luzianne

I don't think Kansas is really broke. Lowering taxes on businesses means more businesses in Kansas/more jobs for Kansas/more residents of Kansas/larger tax base. It may take some time to see the effects, but it works.

You don't think Kansas is really broke, huh? Because Brownback's experiment should hypothetically work? I'll grant you this... you might actually be right about the second part, but if so, Kansas will be the nation's first economy to have figured this out, because Brownback stepped WAY out on an hypothetical limb with these tax cuts. Nobody has ever tried it. The big question is whether it will start to work before the state declares bankruptcy, or after.

Either way, Kansas doesn't have hypothetical money to spend. It has to rely on actual funds, not the hopes and dreams of tea party conservatives.

[luzianne]

^^^maybe we should get more Kansans on welfare so we can be in as good shape as Missouri. (Rolling eyes)

Yes, solutions take time; no economic plan shows results instantaneously. None of you who are bitching about it here care about Kansas anyway. Your only reason for posting is to find fault with Kansas because you don't like that businesses DO move across the state line - and not only for financial reasons.

I seem to recall that Missouri wasn't able to give tax refunds last year in a timely manner because they simply didn't have the money. Kansas was able to give refunds.

[brooksider2brooklyn]

^ you need to take some economics classes