News: "Brownback signs Kansas budget and orders $97 million in allotment cuts, slashing KU funding" (Kansas City: credit, how much)

[brooksider2brooklyn]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Your posts are a badly needed breath of fresh air here. Welcome to the forum.

Lol

[Mattks]

I lived in downtown Wichita from 2010-2012 and there was quite a bit of renovations going on. I was a delivery driver at the Delano Pizza Hut and there were tons of new lofts being built we would deliver to all over downtown, in and around Old Town.

The Kansas side of KC has had tons of growth and it's obviously not artificial growth only from tax incentives, but the tax incentives can not be ignored either. They do give more incentives then the MO side, but the MO side also had a lot more already there as it's the older metro. I don't disagree with some of the things KCMO says, but just remember his user name shows his obvious biases.

Topeka gets a bad rap for its crime, but it's way down right now, and Topeka had less murders then Lawrence in 2014 and 2015 with triple the population. I remember in the early 2000's the Topeka Capitol Journal had a headline on its front page that said, Topeka War Zone? But our crime has dropped drastically in the last decade and we are on track to being the safest Capitol city in America. 2016 crime is up some, but it's still not like it was from the 80's to 2000's.

In my opinion many of Kansas's cities have good governance right now and they are tackling real issues that plague the cities rather then focusing on new growth areas. It's just a shame we can't see that same governance from the state. It won't happen, but if Kansas could have a non partisan house and senate similar to Nebraska, I think that would help tremendously. The Kansas GOP "purifying" itself of moderates in the last decade has really damaged our state.

[empires228]

Originally Posted by Mattks

I lived in downtown Wichita from 2010-2012 and there was quite a bit of renovations going on. I was a delivery driver at the Delano Pizza Hut and there were tons of new lofts being built we would deliver to all over downtown, in and around Old Town.

The Kansas side of KC has had tons of growth and it's obviously not artificial growth only from tax incentives, but the tax incentives can not be ignored either. They do give more incentives then the MO side, but the MO side also had a lot more already there as it's the older metro. I don't disagree with some of the things KCMO says, but just remember his user name shows his obvious biases.

Topeka gets a bad rap for its crime, but it's way down right now, and Topeka had less murders then Lawrence in 2014 and 2015 with triple the population. I remember in the early 2000's the Topeka Capitol Journal had a headline on its front page that said, Topeka War Zone? But our crime has dropped drastically in the last decade and we are on track to being the safest Capitol city in America. 2016 crime is up some, but it's still not like it was from the 80's to 2000's.

In my opinion many of Kansas's cities have good governance right now and they are tackling real issues that plague the cities rather then focusing on new growth areas. It's just a shame we can't see that same governance from the state. It won't happen, but if Kansas could have a non partisan house and senate similar to Nebraska, I think that would help tremendously. The Kansas GOP "purifying" itself of moderates in the last decade has really damaged our state.

I would really like to see where your crime data for Topeka VS Lawrence for murders came from because I really need to see for my own eyes that lawrence jumped from one murder in 2013 to a number above the six Topeka had in 2014. Lawrence is also only predicted to have around 30,000 less people within the city limits than Topeka now as well. Lawrence is expected to be over 93,000 while Topeka sits around 127,000. Lawrence will probably end up around 97,000 by 2020 while Topeka is once again plagued with stagnant growth. Topeka does have the advantage of being the capital, having the Lays and Mars facilities, having Payless, and having way more potential to redevelop the downtown into something urban and hip, but Lawrence has the advantage of KU, not having to have a special tax to fund KU, being a newer built city, and the fact that they can act as a bedroom community for both Johnson County and Topeka where many of the residents work.

[Mattks]

Originally Posted by empires228

I would really like to see where your crime data for Topeka VS Lawrence for murders came from because I really need to see for my own eyes that lawrence jumped from one murder in 2013 to a number above the six Topeka had in 2014. Lawrence is also only predicted to have around 30,000 less people within the city limits than Topeka now as well. Lawrence is expected to be over 93,000 while Topeka sits around 127,000. Lawrence will probably end up around 97,000 by 2020 while Topeka is once again plagued with stagnant growth. Topeka does have the advantage of being the capital, having the Lays and Mars facilities, having Payless, and having way more potential to redevelop the downtown into something urban and hip, but Lawrence has the advantage of KU, not having to have a special tax to fund KU, being a newer built city, and the fact that they can act as a bedroom community for both Johnson County and Topeka where many of the residents work.

Topeka Metro 233,000
Lawrence metro 114,000
So, I exaggerated some, it's about double the population.
If you want to go by just the city limits, Lawrence is 93,000 and Topeka is 127,000, but Topeka has many suburbs (most are nice areas) that are not in the physical city limits, examples Lake Sherwood and Lake Shawnee neighborhoods. It should be noted that if all the suburbs (not small towns) were included in the city, the crime rate by population would drop drastically in Topeka. There are many neighborhoods that are resisting to join the city of Topeka, and I don't think the city limits are a fair comparison of population. Lawrence is seeing population increases by becoming more dense, but also by incorporating new developments west of the city, Topeka struggles with incorporating new housing developments. You can really see it on city limits maps.

Lawrence crime has remained fairly stable in the last few years while Topeka has continued to decline. Complete 2015 data is not available yet, but I know Lawrence had multiple murders last year as well.

2014 brought the most homicides in Lawrence in more than 11 years / LJWorld.com

Lawrence went from 3 murders in 2013 to 6 in 2014, and I believe they have added more murders to that total since that article. Topeka had 6 murders for 2014. So it is possibly a tie.

https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime...ce-Kansas.html

https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Topeka-Kansas.html

Lawrence is a very safe city according to the data, and Topeka has improved significantly in the last decade. I do think Lawrence will eventually catch and pass Topeka in population, it's just a matter of time. I honestly think the debate between the cities is silly, from Topeka to KC is almost all one giant city now. I live on the west side of Topeka and can be in downtown Lawrence in 40 minutes, and be in most of JOCO in about an hour. Most cities would consider a 40 minute drive to still be in the metro.

Topeka does lose out on not having a state university, but there are three within a 45 minute drive from my house. KU, KSU, and ESU. Washburn University is a good school in its own right as well. Topeka's biggest problem imo, are the decaying older neighborhoods in between Washburn and downtown. But even there are some bright spots, like the Holliday Park neighborhood, which has multiple half million dollar homes.

Anyway, I think both Topeka and Lawrence will both see a slight uptick in crime for 2016, but Lawrence will continue to be a stable safe city, while Topeka will continue to improve.

[Craziaskowboi]

Sam Brownback needs to understand that the state of Kansas is not a publicly-traded corporation, so cutting things to boost the stock price is not going to work. Furthermore, it's possible to cut too much. At what point does a state or a corporation start cutting into muscle instead of fat? I'm all for making the most efficient use of tax dollars, but when the government can't provide basic services, it becomes a waste of tax dollars anyway. Not every public service needs to be privatized. In fact, privatizing certain services can be bad for consumers because the corporation providing the service has to make a profit in doing so, while the government merely has to break even, so the cost of consuming the service can increase if privatized. Similarly, most corporations don't need to be subsidized. If Kansas has an inherent advantage over Missouri, then corporations won't need Kansas to feed them taxpayer-subsidized carrots to cross the state line. Unless, of course, those carrots are why Kansas has an advantage over Missouri in the first place...

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by kcmo

^ Wichita is the largest and really the only large "city" in the state and for it being the largest city...

Most states put a lot of emphasis on their largest city because they are proud of it and want to see it thrive (as well as their capital city). Kansas does neither. Kansas is all about subsidizing sprawl outside of the 435 beltway in the KC area and using KCMO's low hanging fruit (ie, companies, attractions etc) as items they can poach or duplicate to sustain and justify that subsidized sprawl. That's it. period.

I know they have a few things going on in Wichita (mostly a few grassroots redevelopments) and that's great. But for the most part, it's a very very slow growth and slow to change city just like the rest of the state.

It is what it is.

Meanwhile, Missouri pumps tons of money into building 4 lane roads to Branson etc.

It's really sad how biased and blind you are.

If they built a mono-rail from Branson to KC and bankrupted the state you'd first poo yourself and then blame Kansas somehow when they went bankrupt.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by empires228

I'm the first person to say that I'm not even considering applying for a teaching job in this state. If I can't find anything in NE or MO I will either move farther away, or find a different line of work.

It's harder to find teaching jobs in KS.

You should apply to the KCMO school district....they'll have openings.

[SPonteKC]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

It's harder to find teaching jobs in KS.

Are you joking? Kansas is having a huge crisis with teacher exodus and no one in their right mind wants to go work in public education in Kansas right now.

KCPSD, by contrast, is a good Union career, with benefits, a competitive pay scale and rights. They don't have any trouble filling those positions.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by s.davis

Are you joking? Kansas is having a huge crisis with teacher exodus and no one in their right mind wants to go work in public education in Kansas right now.

KCPSD, by contrast, is a good Union career, with benefits, a competitive pay scale and rights. They don't have any trouble filling those positions.

Really? All the KCPTSD teachers I know have their kids in JOCO.

Accreditation? Psssshhhhh who needs that when you can get it via politics? Besides, you can just have your cops arrest or shoot all your dropouts.

[Kthnry]

The NY Times is watching. :-)

Kansas Parents Worry Schools Are Slipping Amid Budget Battles