The Missouri side continues to pull away, building more new homes than the KS side. (Kansas City: apartment complex, how much)

[brooksider2brooklyn]

Lol

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by brooksider2brooklyn

Lol

I'm sure with all the meth house explosions that there is significant need to rebuild homes in MO.

[Mathguy]

Seems like you guys have decided to cirumvent whatever agreement you had after oversight action by moving the attack threads to the MO forum.

IF so, should I just do the same?

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Seems like you guys have decided to cirumvent whatever agreement you had after oversight action by moving the attack threads to the MO forum.

IF so, should I just do the same?

Nothing has changed around here. I think the Kansas forums have enough people hating on Kansas. You don't need more. . I made it known what I think about Kansas poaching over there. I have always posted about the Kansas poaching in the KC metro forum because they are KC metro topics. It's obvious that those that post most often in the Kansas forums don't give a crap about "metro" KC or even their own state's economy since they support all these tax giveaways that hurt both metro KC and the state of Kansas.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Nothing has changed around here. I think the Kansas forums have enough people hating on Kansas. You don't need more. . I made it known what I think about Kansas poaching over there. I have always posted about the Kansas poaching in the KC metro forum because they are KC metro topics. It's obvious that those that post most often in the Kansas forums don't give a crap about "metro" KC or even their own state's economy since they support all these tax giveaways that hurt both metro KC and the state of Kansas.

Hey, why don't we meet for lunch sometime over by Bannister mall?

Oh wait, that's the mall that failed because it got over-run by all the KCMO school dropouts.

Now it's a billion dollar corporate tax giveaway.

LMAO....hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by brooksider2brooklyn

Some people don't like facts. Kansas not a fast growing place. Is what it is.

I hear ya, I'd move there now that I don't have kids to educate.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Hey, why don't we meet for lunch sometime over by Bannister mall?

Oh wait, that's the mall that failed because it got over-run by all the KCMO school dropouts.

Now it's a billion dollar corporate tax giveaway.

LMAO....hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

haha.

Indian Springs Mall? lol

Mission Mall is still a field, might be a state funded walmart in another ten years.

Great Mall is back to being open land again after that failed tax incentive. Olathe ready to throw STAR bonds at whoever ask for them though!

Metcalf South looks great today, but tax incentives will help turn it into...wait for it... A Lowes!

Speaking of corporate giveaway, quick, name a large project anywhere on the KS side that is not at least partially funded with tax money. The "affluent" 135th St Corridor? Nope, all that is heavily subsidized. Office buildings on College Blvd? Nope, all get incentives. All that new stuff on Renner in Lenexa. Heavily subsidized. Everything within ten miles of the speedway? STAR bonded, Tiffed, you name it. Meanwhile downtown KCK? haha, downtown KCK....

Talk about hypocrisy Troll back over the the KS forum and talk about job losses or something.

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by kcmo

haha.

Indian Springs Mall? lol

Mission Mall is still a field, might be a state funded walmart in another ten years.

Great Mall is back to being open land again after that failed tax incentive. Olathe ready to throw STAR bonds at whoever ask for them though!

Metcalf South looks great today, but tax incentives will help turn it into...wait for it... A Lowes!

Speaking of corporate giveaway, quick, name a large project anywhere on the KS side that is not at least partially funded with tax money. The "affluent" 135th St Corridor? Nope, all that is heavily subsidized. Office buildings on College Blvd? Nope, all get incentives. All that new stuff on Renner in Lenexa. Heavily subsidized. Everything within ten miles of the speedway? STAR bonded, Tiffed, you name it. Meanwhile downtown KCK? haha, downtown KCK....

Talk about hypocrisy Troll back over the the KS forum and talk about job losses or something.

I love the city, but I fail to grasp why you think that the JOCO suburbs is such a terrible place and constantly rail against it, when if you look at it objectively it has a lot to offer residents. I've never been a huge suburb guy, but I can understand that a metro area needs its suburbs just as the suburbs need the urban areas. But when you rail against one side continously, it just comes off as bitter and partisan (not politically partisan, but in terms of the silly "state divide").

You live in the DC area, and I think the situation there is more analagous to here than you might think. In fact, it's even more pronounced an economic divide for all but the very wealthy: DC proper has a staggering amount of wealth inequality, a failing infrastructure (WMATA is in serious trouble), and its poorest citizens are largely minority and suffer from both lack of services (DC schools?) and dwindling opportunities for social mobility, gentrifying neighborhoods from trust fund kids, and meanwhile most of the middle and upper-middle class flock to TWO other states to live in leafy burbs. Not to mention DC residents have little federal representation, while suburban VA/MD residents do. Do you rail against McLean, Fairfax, Arlington, Bethesda, or Landover as much as you hate Overland Park, Leawood, or Lenexa?

Lots of metro areas deal with these issues - in Cincinnati they worry about Covington, KY. Memphis suburbs extend into Mississippi. Charlotte burbs roll into SC. It's a silly argument to say "as soon as they cross the state line, they are not helping the metro area as whole..."...which is I think what your arguments boil down to. I don't think that computes - there is a lot more symbiosis between city and suburb - regardless of a state line - than you give credit for.

[rwiksell]

Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth

I love the city, but I fail to grasp why you think that the JOCO suburbs is such a terrible place and constantly rail on it, when if you look at it objectively it has a lot to offer residents. I've never been a huge suburb guy, but I can understand that a metro area needs its suburbs just as the suburbs need the urban portions. But when you rail against one side continously, it just comes off as bitter and partisan (not politically partisan, but in terms of the state divide).

You live in the DC area, and I think the situation there is more analagous to here than you might think. DC proper has a staggering amount of wealth inequality, a failing infrastructure (WMATA is in serious trouble), and its poorest citizens are largely minority and suffer from both lack of services (DC schools?) and social mobility, gentrifying neighborhoods from trust fund kids, and meanwhile most of the middle and upper-middle class flock to TWO other states to live in leafy burbs. Not to mention DC residents have little federal representation, while suburban VA/MD residents do. Do you rail against McLean, Fairfax, Arlington, Bethesda, or Landover as much as you hate Overland Park, Leawood, or Lenexa?

You're missing the point, dude.

kcmo (and I, for that matter) do not have a problem with the suburbs, per se. You be you. People who like suburbs can live there, no big deal. It's when taxpayer money goes to prop them up in a ridiculously over-the-top way that people like us complain.

Yes, taxpayer money goes to urban projects too, but it really is different when it's a matter of infill - to keep a lot in the middle of a developed area from becoming blighted and bringing the whole neighborhood down, or to revive a high-profile section of the city. Taxpayer money for greenfield projects is a double waste.

Anyway, we can debate that, and we probably will. What doesn't need to be debated is whether or not we hate the suburbs. We don't.

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by rwiksell

You're missing the point, dude.

kcmo (and I, for that matter) do not have a problem with the suburbs, per se. You be you. People who like suburbs can live there, no big deal. It's when taxpayer money goes to prop them up in a ridiculously over-the-top way that people like us complain.

Yes, taxpayer money goes to urban projects too, but it really is different when it's a matter of infill - to keep a lot in the middle of a developed area from becoming blighted and bringing the whole neighborhood down, or to revive a high-profile section of the city. Taxpayer money for greenfield projects is a double waste.

Anyway, we can debate that, and we probably will. What doesn't need to be debated is whether or not we hate the suburbs. We don't.

The taxpayer money and demand for projects is naturally going to follow the geographical wealth-sprawl of the tax base. More money will be spent for services, and more projects will be demanded in areas where people pay more in property taxes. In the case of KC, this happens in the suburbs (In NYC, it happens in Manhattan). It's may be unfortunate that it is not more evenly distributed, but it's a fact of life. It happens in every metro area of the country (and the wealth disparity is far worse in many other areas), and it happens in the MO burbs as much as it happens in the JOCO and Kansas-side burbs. So I don't understand why the KCMO continues to pick on just the KS burbs. If your argument is against suburbs cannibalizing the cities that they surround, the argument is inconsistent when you continually attack suburbs on just one side of the state line.