KCRag Forum

As border war scuffles on, Missouri wins in one key metric

...

Although 39 states saw a drop in new business creation from 2012 to 2013, Missouri had a 16.66 percent increase, beating the next contender, Kentucky, by 10.6 percentage points.

Although Kansas recently lured the metro area's No. 1 private company from Missouri– Dairy Farmers of America Inc. – it's losing the larger battle. In Kansas, 3,338 new businesses were created in 2013, a 3.36 percent drop from 2012. In Missouri, 9,052 new businesses were created in 2013.

...

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... eated.html

DFA is the metro area's #1 private company? Wonder what their standard is?

.

I was reading a book the Star put out for their 125th anniversary in 2006. Contains a lot of random history bits, including this:

they did a series in 1983 about why KC was falling behind other cities. Answer: 100 cities, several counties and two states competing against each other.

.

If the Kansas City metro were in one state and mostly one county, and if there weren't so many municipalities, we could probably have a combined city-county government like some other metropolitan areas do. There would be fewer governments to play against each other. There would be more efficient practices, and probably a more cooperative effect among metro citizenry. There would be less of the Johnson County / Jackson County dynamic. There would likely be more cooperation paying for stadiums, the zoo, museums, and mass transit.

Those in government would probably have an easier time with zoning and better planning. For example, if we were mostly one big city, the council could better enforce how regional development is done. They could make decisions that are more sustainable. As it is now, KCMO can't enact certain policies, because it could lose developers and businesses that are seeking to avoid them. The City could zone new neighborhoods to adhere to better standards; have more direct influence where development occurs, and for example, more heavily tax subdivisions with houses on large lots that will not be dense enough to support their own infrastructure as they age, and need replacement or repair. You would see less isolated development so far out, and with large expanses of vacant land in between them that are hard to service.

Good development practices can't really be accomplished here because developers can just move into another municipality that allows them to do anything, anywhere.

All local municipalities and counties give up a lot of tax revenue competing against each other.

We would probably be further along with creating a regional commuter rail system.

The numerous municipalities also created the problem of annexing land and expanding boundaries long before it was ever needed. Cities claimed vast tracts of undeveloped land before an adjacent city claimed it, to avoid becoming landlocked. Kansas City has done this in the Northland and South Kansas City. Doing so allows the City to grow, but it also had to take on the costs of providing infrastructure and services in mostly rural areas. Those sparsely-populated areas within City boundaries don't provide a lot of tax revenue.

Much like anything else the blame or cause are a combination of many things - a little bit of this, some more of that
I think one item that works against the KCMO in particular is how and when the city developed. Major cities from St. louis and east and northeast from there were formed and established before 1800. They grew compact since the major form of transportation was by horse. In 1800 KC was just a small trading post and really wasn't the main trade center in the area. But Kansas City grew after the Civil War and much of the growth occurred when transportation became much more mechanical. Instead of growing compactly it was able to spread out. This was because the local area hadn't developed so when the city expanded it was into virgin territory and if an area was developed Kansas City absorbed it much like Westport. In other words Kansas City wasn't landlocked much like the old industrial cities of the northeast and upper Midwest.
Now Kansas City is made up of four different areas, each with its own set of needs and wants. You have the core, and its problems, of the city, which would mainly be the area of the city before the annexations of the late 50's and later. You have the area north of the river which is roughly half the size of the city and for most part is growing faster than the rest of the city and may contain close to half of the city's population by 2030. A third area is the part of the city that is directly south of the city as it existed before the 50's annexations. Most of this part developed after WW II and for the most part is showing its age both in development and population. The 4th area is the southeast portion of the city and the area east of Raytown. It's a little bit of parts two and three of the city - developed when the baby boomers were young plus areas looking to be developed now. And let's not forget sometimes within one or another of the 4 areas you will have subsections that will compete against another subsection of the area.
These 4 areas fight with each other for the attention of city officials and city funds. Sometimes these sections can unite on issues that can benefit the city as a whole but mostly each area will look out for itself first and the city as a whole second.
So yes KCMO finds itself in conflict with other areas of the Metro but many times the conflicts are greater within the city itself.

longviewmo wrote:I was reading a book the Star put out for their 125th anniversary in 2006. Contains a lot of random history bits, including this:

they did a series in 1983 about why KC was falling behind other cities. Answer: 100 cities, several counties and two states competing against each other.

All cities suffered in the 80's, with a state line or without, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, all were cities that declined in the 80s and didn't have state lines to worry about.

Is curious that economically strong cold weather metros have state capitol in metro (CO/Denver, MN/St Paul, IN/Indy, OH/Columbus). There are of course many other factors but KC and STL could be better off if KCMO/JaCo were donated to KS and moved KS state capitol downtown. STL would likely be better off if MO state capitol moved there. Not going to happen but just at thought.

earthling wrote:Is curious that economically strong cold weather metros have state capitol in metro (CO/Denver, MN/St Paul, IN/Indy, OH/Columbus). There are of course many other factors but KC and STL could be better off if KCMO/JaCo were donated to KS and moved KS state capitol downtown. STL would likely be better off if MO state capitol moved there. Not going to happen but just at thought.

KC may be better off, but there would be an outcry in the rest of the state that has recently been governed more by the rural areas than the urban areas.

kcjak wrote:

earthling wrote:Is curious that economically strong cold weather metros have state capitol in metro (CO/Denver, MN/St Paul, IN/Indy, OH/Columbus). There are of course many other factors but KC and STL could be better off if KCMO/JaCo were donated to KS and moved KS state capitol downtown. STL would likely be better off if MO state capitol moved there. Not going to happen but just at thought.

KC may be better off, but there would be an outcry in the rest of the state that has recently been governed more by the rural areas than the urban areas.

And they have crappier economies because of it.

earthling wrote:Is curious that economically strong cold weather metros have state capitol in metro (CO/Denver, MN/St Paul, IN/Indy, OH/Columbus). There are of course many other factors but KC and STL could be better off if KCMO/JaCo were donated to KS and moved KS state capitol downtown. STL would likely be better off if MO state capitol moved there. Not going to happen but just at thought.

You might have a point about the effect of a state capital but don't forget downtown KCMO already has a big presence of government workers downtown.

It's not about govt employees, is about metros that are stronger because the state decision makers mostly reside or essentially work in the metro.

Yep, it has a big effect in Jeff City. As does Topeka.

Having the state capital around does help the smaller cities but as the cities get larger the effect much smaller compared to other items.

I was speaking to decision makers working/residing in the metro vs small town, not the location of the govt labor force. The decisions that are made tend to be pro-city/economy when capitol resides in large metro and the state as a whole appears to be stronger in most cases. When capitol is in a small town (that has large metros), the decision focus tends to lean towards social conservatism and lack of interest in the cities than growing state economy, of which the cities drive the most GDP.

The make up of the legislature has way more affect on decisions than the various workers in the different departments. The legislature, with the governor, sets the budget, approves the programs, etc. The workers for the most part just carry out the wishes of the elected officials.
Out of the 4 examples you citied the sizes of the cities themselves and/or the surrounding metro areas have way more effect than the seat of state government. Way back when, before statehood and shortly afterwards, being the state capital helped a great deal but still the bigger effect would have been what was happening economic wise.

Could it be? An end to the hostilities?

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... r-war.html

The cynic in me says its doubtful.

Who wants to bet KCMO is just about to announce a border hop from JoCo? It also sounds like they carved out a way to continue the plan to steal the american royal (though Im fine with that).

kboish wrote: Who wants to bet KCMO is just about to announce a border hop from JoCo?

I was thinking the same when reading article earlier. Am cautiously optimistic it could help down the road but would be nice to see MO side score a big daddy (if in progress) before signing a deal.

Seems bogus to insist it happen in the next 30 days or so the MO leg is in session unless the groundwork is already laid.

grovester wrote:Seems bogus to insist it happen in the next 30 days or so the MO leg is in session unless the groundwork is already laid.

Seems bogus that once the "battle" has turned decidedly against Kansas (and is only going to get worse for them as DT establishes itself as the premier address in the metro along with the plaza), Brownback comes looking for peace. Right now, KC has much to gain from letting the war continue.

Frankly, the use of incentives are clear violations of SEC antitrust laws as they give one business a distinct competitive advantage over another (but the SEC has never applied the law in that manner). I think they should be abolished across the US and only used at the federal level to get business to re-centralize into urban cores to cut back on sprawl and promote public transportation - something that would have a profound HSE impact in the country.