KCRag Forum

LenexatoKCMO wrote: in 1987.  I grew up around the corner from Oak Park, yet we used to drive accross town to shop at Bannister when I was young.  

If you are going to keep a mall going decade after decade you have to do total stirp down remodels when the decor starts getting long in the tooth.  Do Oak Park, Ward Parkway, and Independance Center still look like the mid 80's?  No, they have all had major modifications and investment to keep them up to date.  

Obviously this isn't the only factor in the downfall of Banister but it does beg the question of whether it would have fallen so far off the map if it had benefited from a major redo.  

Oak Park Mall is one of the most boring, drab malls, (especially for a successfull mall) I have ever set foot in.  Indep Center is one of the nicest and it sat out there for 25 years...waiting.

It's all about demographics, and mostly reputation.  Both of those brought Bannister to its knees, not a lack of modern skylights.

Without a doubt. Section 8 Apartment Development killed suburban south Kansas City KS too. If not for it Rosedale and Argentine would look more like Westwood and Roeland Park today. Turner was lucky we were able to keep it out. They tried to put it in at 47th and Shawnee Dr in the 70's behind the Apple Market, and the community said no way in hell. Now that same tract is a nice mixed single family/duplex  neighborhood built in the early 90's. Otherwise property values in Turner would probably be 30-40 percent less and all the new housing we have going in right now, wouldn't be.
In Argentine-Rosedale alone there are at least 5 large section 8 apartment properties. Douglas Heights, Silver City, Bellrose,and a couple of others. The crime they brought with them drove out allot of the middle class, and ended economic development. Of course it is not the city's fault, the Federal government forced it on us. If Overland Park a city slightly larger than KCK now, was forced to have the same number of section 8 apartment complexes today, you would see a world of difference there. Olathe operates the only city-run housing authority in Johnson County, probably because  its status as the county seat,  and is home to more government-approved, low-income tax credit housing units than any other city in the county, nearly a third of the total.

The fact is when you concentrate so many people from low socio-econmic backgrounds into one area, the poverty and crime feeds off itself driving out people of higher socio-economic backgrounds leaving behind the poor in an area with no economic opportunity. The solution is to distribute poorer people evenly throughout a community perhaps in housing authority owned single family and duplex homes dispersed in middle class neighborhoods such as Johnson County's where all the entry level service jobs are located and where the schools perform better giving people a chance to improve their lives and break the cycle.

justin8216 wrote: The solution is to distribute poorer people evenly throughout a community perhaps in housing authority owned single family and duplex homes located in middle class nieghborhoods.

That was supposed to be the goal of Section 8, spreading out public housing instead of concentrating it into big housing projects.  The problem was that so many neighborhoods were able to resist it, and the few neighborhoods where Section 8 folks go could go ended up getting saturated with it.  Whole cities are able to avoid it entiredly by not setting up a housing authority.

justin8216 wrote: Turner was lucky we were able to keep it out.

They tried to put it in at 47th and shawnee dr in the 70's behind the Apple Market, and the community said no way in hell.

The fact is when you concentrate so many people from low socio-econmic backgrounds into one area, the poverty and crime feeds off itself

The problem is when every area that can get away with it says "no way in hell" to any affordable housing integrated in their "neighborhood," this is what you end up with.  Everyone knows that concentrating the poor in one area perpetuates poverty, but when the reality of some "Section 8 housing" going in next door or down the street and the same people will scream "not fair," "my property values are going to decline," etc.

Until attitudes change and/or some alternative way is devised to integrate the working poor throughout the metropolitan area, the problem is not going to go away.  The Bannister Mall situation will just repeat itself again somewhere else.

I guess you guys missed where is siad the solution is putting these families "EVENLY" throught out a community. Saying no way in hell to a section 8 mega aparment complex is the right thing to do, that's not "integrtation" at all,  that is concentrating poor people in one area. Perhaps federal legislation requiring residential developers to disperse reserved low income housing into thier developments is the only way to force suburban communities to share in the burden of housing low-income citizens.

justin8216 wrote: I guess you guys missed where is siad the solution is putting these families "EVENLY" throught out a community. Saying no way in hell to a section 8 mega aparment complex is the right thing to do, because that is concentrating poor people in one area.

I totatlly agree.  I'm saying that this ideal hasn't happened in practice. 

or its become the burden of one central community, ie KCMO or KCK, and not a city-region or metropolitan area.  the problem is when they say "Evenly distribute" they mean "evenly distribute in kcmo" not the metro. 
the federal government should work hard to disperse the lowest lower class into all middle class neighborhoods in a region - if anything it should help the lowest class move up because of steady neighborhoods with all of the positive community aspects and better schools that don't suddenly decay due to poverty concentration

if people don't like it, well, they either have to get a bunch of land or move to grain valley.
and once grain valley becomes suburbanized, then section 8 (or whatever new version) should go there too.  the precentage of lower class then would be so small that people would hardly notice unless they were looking.

voltopt wrote: or its become the burden of one central community, ie KCMO or KCK, and not a city-region or metropolitan area.  the problem is when they say "Evenly distribute" they mean "evenly distribute in kcmo" not the metro. 
the federal government should work hard to disperse the lowest lower class into all middle class neighborhoods in a region - if anything it should help the lowest class move up because of steady neighborhoods with all of the positive community aspects and better schools that don't suddenly decay due to poverty concentration

if people don't like it, well, they either have to get a bunch of land or move to grain valley.
and once grain valley becomes suburbanized, then section 8 (or whatever new version) should go there too.  the precentage of lower class then would be so small that people would hardly notice unless they were looking.

BINGO, you win the common sense prize of the week!!!!

heh...
i don't know whether celebrate or cry.

dangerboy wrote: I totatlly agree.  I'm saying that this ideal hasn't happened in practice. 

You really have to wonder why too.  Even distribution of section 8 housing is such an obvious solution that it's one of the few things you'll ever see everyone on this board agree on.  Yet, our government officials make it out to be as complex as inventing toilet paper that won't stick to your ass.

Thrillcekr wrote: You really have to wonder why too.  Even distribution of section 8 housing is such an obvious solution that it's one of the few things you'll ever see everyone on this board agree on.  Yet, our government officials make it out to be as complex as inventing toilet paper that won't stick to your ass.

Becuase even many on this board would bitch and moan if they found out the house next door was becoming section 8.  Every one likes the idea, no one likes it when it's implemented.

Thrillcekr wrote: You really have to wonder why too.  Even distribution of section 8 housing is such an obvious solution that it's one of the few things you'll ever see everyone on this board agree on.  Yet, our government officials make it out to be as complex as inventing toilet paper that won't stick to your ass.

NIMBY.  Too many neighborhoods are able to rise a stink and keep Section 8 out.  Then it ends up in the areas that are already poorer and have less effective neighborhood associations.

let's just create Rio-style Section 8 favelas out in Johnson County.  that'll learn 'em.

Who decides where section 8 goes?  It's got to be more then just a county thing, right?  Isn't it a federal subsidy?

I submit that there isn't one poster here who would like some Section 8 residents next to them. At least not the property owners. But I would tak our share in the Northland.

I had a big argument over this in one of the STL forums years ago and it was explained to me that Section 8 people like to live in the cities where they are walkable and have public transportation and other services that they need.

So Chrizow-your little wish for Johnsonson county is pretty moot. No section 8 will be able to afford most places in JOCO.

nota wrote:
I had a big argument over this in one of the STL forums years ago and it was explained to me that Section 8 people like to live in the cities where they are walkable and have public transportation and other services that they need.

So Chrizow-your little wish for Johnsonson county is pretty moot. No section 8 will be able to afford most places in JOCO.

if Section 8 like to live in cities with transit access, i guess it sucks for the Section 8ers living in Independence, Belton, Raytown, Jefferson City, etc. 

and my "little wish for johnson county" was made in jest.  although i am pretty sure there is section 8 housing in johnson county.  there are over 20,000 people living below the poverty line there, and there is a huge waiting list for public housing provided by the JoCo Housing authority as well as Olathe Housing authority.

There is a very large Section 8 population in Liberty as well.

The cities you mentioned where the people live are not suburbs like JOCO which you were ranting about.

I have no idea whether or not it is true that they like living in cities because they are walkable and have transportation and services however it seems that it might be fairly correct. The section 8 families I worked with who we got set up in the burbs always migrated back to the cities within a few months or a year. Said it was easier to get to the things they needed. Both in STL and in KC.

it wasn't section 8 that did in Bannister Mall. It was putting to many poor people in one location near the Mall. People who use to live where 71 highway is now.

Crime killed bannister mall.My wife and I used to live out south years ago and would
shop there and eat at Annies SanteFe and even see a show once a week.We noticed that
things were going bad when huge gang fights would break out in the mall and police would escort people to ones auto.....pretty sad....I loved that place.I still have a house in one of the still good blocks in Ruskin but want to sell due to the crime and high rental saturation.Last winter ,I pulled up to the house late one night and saw someone jumping my fence;so i gave him a lecture at gunpointe about tresspassing.He was the renter next door and i later found out that he was a drug dealer that got busted.

In 1993 right before I joined the Navy, we used to go over there all the time to eat and shop at the mall. Within a matter of 5 years the whole area shit the bed. You can blame it on sec8 or crime, but it starts with the people and stops with the people. Sugar coating the subject is nice for the forum, but we all know why the area collapsed.