KCRag Forum

ldai_phs wrote:That we shouldn't even have to vote on it only because a small group of people are against it and other projects moving our city forward are against it.

When the measure fails I'm going to quote this ignorant assumption of yours again. Just an FYI. You clearly aren't from Kansas City, and haven't spent anywhere near enough time around actual locals.

"locals"

whatever the fuck that means.

"The people who are likely to vote this down."

B&M wants to be reinstated:

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... nt-in.html

they really just need to stop.

DaveKCMO wrote:they really just need to stop.

Agreed. What happens if they are reinstated and lose again!?!?!

City council needs to end this this week given they have solid standing from their legal team. Caving to one proposers lawyer theatening would be ridiculous.

I think Week in Review said that Edgmoor does not yet have an Engineering firm on its team. Why don't they just end this nonsense by putting B&M on their team as a contractor?

.

This is from the Missouri Constitution and this is evidently what is being referenced.
"Section 27(a). Political subdivision revenue bonds issued for utilities and airports, restrictions.—Any county, city or incorporated town or village in this state, by vote of a majority of the qualified electors thereof voting thereon, may issue and sell its negotiable interest bearing revenue bonds for the purpose of paying all or part of the cost of purchasing, constructing, extending or improving any of the following: (1) revenue producing water, gas or electric light works, heating or power plants; or (2) airports; to be owned exclusively by the county, city or incorporated town or village, the cost of operation and maintenance and the principal and interest of the bonds to be payable solely from the revenues derived by the county, city or incorporated town or village from the operation of the utility or airport. (Adopted November 7, 1978)
Of course not a lawyer, and definitely not a lawyer with a background in the Missouri State Constitution but I don't see how this restricts what the city is proposing to do at KCI. The city isn't issuing revenue bonds and only revenue generated by the airport is going to be used to pay the project manager for the bond interest and retirement. And the scenario put forth by Hamilton was the scenario I thought the city would be using with this project.
Revenue bonds always carry a greater risk than general obligation bonds and that greater risk is always reflected in the higher interest rates. Don't believe this should create a big bump in the road.

.

The state constitution doesn't say a Baltimore company can work in Missouri.....illegal!

.

It's all sour grapes. Management should be ashamed of itself.

Burns and Mac called in some favors....this is pretty gross.

https://twitter.com/RyanSilvey/status/9 ... 4635944960

unreal.

Mike Cierpots quote has to make you laugh. "i don't think we need a new airport, but if we do - we may as well use the hometown team. oh, and something about the law".

They were ranked initially (2nd) but then thrown out as their proposal didn't meet the law. I'm not sure what they think their standing is here....beside the fact that this isn't a state rep discussion.

This whole process is just really making B&M look bad. If anything it reaffirms the perspective that they were trying to get preferential treatment the whole time. Really unfortunate that a local team would have to stoop to this level.

Someone floated the idea of a regional office controlled airport authority. I think this is actually a great idea.

I'm fine with a regional airport authority. With as rough as this thing has been politically, I'm hoping they push the election to the spring now. It's going to be rough to try to mount a campaign with 45ish days left before the election when there's a large number of people that still aren't convinced a new terminal is needed. I think you push a campaign into the spring and get away from all the political drama of the past few months.