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.
A move like this won't prevent me from putting KC on the list as potential places to move for 2018. As long as buses exit I'm good until I get my own ride. I am a mark for trains but which is more important, a streetcar extension (that can be replaced by a legit BRT) or tackling the violent crime issue? If you're gonna do rail do it right or don't do it at all. Put it underground or elevate it. At least you have a streetcar(tho it could have a stop at the Sprint Center), unlike cities twice KC's population(Columbus, San Antonio).
You all make valid points. From the outside, Kansas City appears to be a cow-town with potential to be a Great Midwest Metropolis. So although we have a great geographic location in the center of the country, why don't we make the infrastructure improvements to make this a first-class city?
One of the issues we have in Kansas City blocking these improvements is literally a North/South divided city. The socioeconomic views & challenges are night/day depending on the side of the river you are on. Generally speaking, if you live north of the river, you don't want to pay higher taxes for infrastructure improvements downtown with little or no benefit to the Northland. Likewise, if the shoe were on the other foot, people south of the river won't vote for a project up north, with no value proposition to them. Our public services up north are grossly underfunded. Police, EMS & Fire response north of the river are all a joke. Oddly enough though, the areas that are understaffed and underfunded are also the areas that happen to have the lowest crime/homicide rates in the city.
I don't see a clear answer on how this would even be possible, but based on my research, the only way that I see the light rail/streetcar project ever making it to the airport or UMKC, Westport or the Plaza - or really anywhere beyond the current routes at all, is if:
A) There is a value proposition that benefits the residents of the Northland which convinces them to vote for higher taxes.
B) Most or all of these projects are funded by private investors with no tax encroachment upon those opposed.
C) There was a movement to divide the city into two separate cities, where Kansas City, MO (proper) would be south of the river, and the areas north of the river in Platte & Clay Counties would vote to join North Kansas City, Liberty, Riverside & Parkville, or form separate city entities of their own.
The value to Option C - People north of the river wouldn't have to pay to fund schools their kids don't go to. No 1% tax that doesn't benefit them. They won't have to pay for a streetcar system that doesn't benefit them. The benefit south of the river would be that they could tax the residents of the city who want it, and do whatever they want to prove to the rest of the Metro what they can do. Therefore encouraging expansion. The only thing that would make this any sort of a reality is if they move forward with privatizing the airport improvement project as is being discussed.
The funny thing is, the residents and business owners in the Main Street corridor voted to approve the expansion of the taxing district that funds the current streetcar. Northlanders aren't paying a dime for its maintenance or operation unless they buy merchandise from a business located within that taxing district, unless there's some sort of hidden city contribution I'm unaware of. Is there?
If there's not, then your ire over the streetcar is totally misplaced, as it's not taking away money that would otherwise have gone to services that would improve the quality of life in the Northland. And if the extended streetcar proves its usefulness as a commuter route, which is what its backers hope it will do once it extends to the Plaza and UMKC, that lays the groundwork for something closer to what Clay Chastain keeps pushing, and that's an extension northward to serve KCI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPonteKC
Do you guys know how public school districts are funded?
Don't property taxes pay for them? What citywide taxes go to support the Kansas City (Mo.) School District? If there are any, why don't we hear complaints from people who live in those parts of the city served by the Raytown, Independence, Center, Ruskin Heights or Grandview school districts?
What's the one percent tax KCNorthlander mentions go towards?
Since my old stomping ground came up: I no longer live in the city, but like many expats (including every expat I've met in my travels around Philly and up and down the East Coast), I love it deeply. I grew up on the East Side, in the Oak Park neighborhood, which used to be nicer than it is now. I think many East Side residents still living there may remember when it was nicer than it is now, and wonder why that's the case. Yes, there was the investment in the Jazz District, but IMO it was sort of kneecapped from the start by the great emptying out of the area immediately to its west thanks to the "urban renewal" leveling of the area in the late 1960s. Prospect Avenue is a ghost of its former self, and the completion of Bruce Watkins Drive, "the freeway the East Side didn't want," helped drain it of life. Even if you consider it unwarranted or excessive, can you possibly see where East Siders might get that "well, where's ours?" attitude?
The only thing that will push transit forward is disincentivizing the use of cars in the city. KC has a pretty amazing freeway system. It's superior to my current city, Seattle, which is super congested. People vote for transit because the freeways suck and are crowded all the time. But it's almost intentional in a way.
KC embraced car culture in a very unmitigated way. It's going to take a lack of parking and congestion in the city center to light a fire under the butts of people. I don't see transit happening in a meaningful way unless KC stops enabling car culture. Until then heck, why fix something that ain't broken?
Also, as a former Northland resident, the taxes were part of the reason I left. Very few services for what I paid into the city. But my major gripe was with the state. Missouri is a highly taxed Republican state. I loathed the thought of my tax dollars going into advancing Eric effing Greitens and his nefarious agendas which included zero investment in public transit.
Last edited by Bluefox; 08-12-2017 at 12:28 AM..
Reason: Typos
I am not a fan of streetcars. So I don't blame KC voters for wanting some input before they implemented further. If it was really about transit needs, then perhaps BRT should have been pursued. Was the streetcar going to be part of a greater transit initiative, like a LRT line?
A move like this won't prevent me from putting KC on the list as potential places to move for 2018. As long as buses exit I'm good until I get my own ride. I am a mark for trains but which is more important, a streetcar extension (that can be replaced by a legit BRT) or tackling the violent crime issue? If you're gonna do rail do it right or don't do it at all. Put it underground or elevate it. At least you have a streetcar(tho it could have a stop at the Sprint Center), unlike cities twice KC's population(Columbus, San Antonio).
Uh, maybe this is nitpicking, but Columbus and San Antonio are not effectively larger than KC. They're about the same.
San Antonio metro population: 2.4 million
Kansas City metro population: 2.1 million
Columbus metro population: 2.0 million
Yes, their municipal population numbers are higher, but that's pretty irrelevant in an economic development sense.
I am not a fan of streetcars. So I don't blame KC voters for wanting some input before they implemented further. If it was really about transit needs, then perhaps BRT should have been pursued. Was the streetcar going to be part of a greater transit initiative, like a LRT line?
If it were up to Clay Chastain, yes.
KC already has two BRT-lite lines, dubbed MAX (Metropolitan Area eXpress): One runs along Main Street, Brookside Boulevard and Wornall Road from downtown to Waldo, and the other down Troost (I don't know its southern end but suspect it's somewhere around Bannister Road).
A third is slated to run down Prospect, probably south to 75th Street, in the not too distant future.
But if voters in a geographically defined area are willing to tax themselves to build one, why keep the city from providing them with assistance [non-financial, since the taxes will provide the revenue]?
Many KC residents are pissed off that they "have" to live in a city and would prefer the wilds and boredom of Paola, Gardner and Eudora.
Except Kansans have rarely been given the opportunity to vote on important issues, so it's more like Excelsior Springs, Sugar Creek, and Kearney .
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
Uh, maybe this is nitpicking, but Columbus and San Antonio are not effectively larger than KC. They're about the same.
San Antonio metro population: 2.4 million
Kansas City metro population: 2.1 million
Columbus metro population: 2.0 million
Yes, their municipal population numbers are higher, but that's pretty irrelevant in an economic development sense.
They don't have the issue of having a decent chunk of their metro population in a different state, which makes metro-wide voting much easier. Kansas City had made the mistake of not making metro-wide votes appealing to both sides of the state line. Most of the people I know in JoCo/WyCo would vote for stuff like a tax that would fun the Zoo, stadium renovations, etc., but they've shot down the idea of metro-wide initiatives in the past because they feel as though all of the money will be funneled into Missouri with none of it being allotted for use in Kansas, something I feel like they're right in thinking. For light rail to ever pass, KCMO would have to get all of the suburban civic leaders together and make a plan that benefits everyone regardless if they live in Lee's Summit, KCK, Independence, or Olathe. It wouldn't hurt them to try and get Lawrence or St. Joseph on board either.
Last edited by empires228; 08-12-2017 at 07:41 AM..
The funny thing is, the residents and business owners in the Main Street corridor voted to approve the expansion of the taxing district that funds the current streetcar. Northlanders aren't paying a dime for its maintenance or operation unless they buy merchandise from a business located within that taxing district, unless there's some sort of hidden city contribution I'm unaware of. Is there?
If there's not, then your ire over the streetcar is totally misplaced, as it's not taking away money that would otherwise have gone to services that would improve the quality of life in the Northland. And if the extended streetcar proves its usefulness as a commuter route, which is what its backers hope it will do once it extends to the Plaza and UMKC, that lays the groundwork for something closer to what Clay Chastain keeps pushing, and that's an extension northward to serve KCI.
Don't property taxes pay for them? What citywide taxes go to support the Kansas City (Mo.) School District? If there are any, why don't we hear complaints from people who live in those parts of the city served by the Raytown, Independence, Center, Ruskin Heights or Grandview school districts?
What's the one percent tax KCNorthlander mentions go towards?
Since my old stomping ground came up: I no longer live in the city, but like many expats (including every expat I've met in my travels around Philly and up and down the East Coast), I love it deeply. I grew up on the East Side, in the Oak Park neighborhood, which used to be nicer than it is now. I think many East Side residents still living there may remember when it was nicer than it is now, and wonder why that's the case. Yes, there was the investment in the Jazz District, but IMO it was sort of kneecapped from the start by the great emptying out of the area immediately to its west thanks to the "urban renewal" leveling of the area in the late 1960s. Prospect Avenue is a ghost of its former self, and the completion of Bruce Watkins Drive, "the freeway the East Side didn't want," helped drain it of life. Even if you consider it unwarranted or excessive, can you possibly see where East Siders might get that "well, where's ours?" attitude?
The Interstate, as it was intended, I49/71 HWY, Bruce Watkins, etc, was planned originally back in the 1950s I believe. A lot of the people I know that live on the east side of the city are very insular I believe is the word, and don't see the bigger picture of the city and it's city limits. They don't have any interest in the streetcar or light rail, and will probably always vote against those and they will probably be the ones, if the KCI votes fail, that kills the vote for a new terminal.
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.
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.
.
