KCRag Forum

KCPowercat wrote:what's the link to that data? Weird they listed the STL number so detailed and all the other airports rounded to the 10th of a million.

I think this was originally posted on Urban STL.

STLguy1 wrote:STL Metro did not lose population. You are misinformed. The growth was slower but not negative.

Not according to the U.S. census.....the St. Louis metro dropped 1328 people.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ar ... 41529.html

KCFan wrote:

STLguy1 wrote:STL Metro did not lose population. You are misinformed. The growth was slower but not negative.

Not according to the U.S. census.....the St. Louis metro dropped 1328 people.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ar ... 41529.html

A single year doesn't tell much for population changes.

From 2010 to 2016 there was a MSA increase overall of 22k. But of the 12 counties + city, 6 of them shrunk in size and one, St. Charles County, grew enough to counter the decline of all six by itself. Jefferson County is the other notable growth area. Meanwhile, the Illinois side is shrinking.

So the metro area is moving outwards in Missouri. St. Louis county is basically stagnant in size, dropping by around 300 people over 6 years

One thing that's interesting is St. Louis county has a larger foreign born population as a percentage than the city does.

I, and I think most people in KC, don’t ever think about St. Louis. They don’t have anything to be jealous of or inspire to. I hope they start doing better for the sake of the state, but they seem so locked in the past and non- forward thinking, IMO. I’m more interested in watching Denver or Dallas as they have more what need we with regards to industry, and west coast cities with regards to development and city life.

More detail here. The annual migration tells the real story not so much birth/death rate...

STL population..
https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/popu ... s%2C_MO-IL

KC
https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/popu ... y%2C_MO-KS

Looks like the outcome of the MOU vote today is anyone's guess.

Cooler heads prevail.....i predict 11 to 2 in favor.

KCPowercat wrote:Cooler heads prevail.....i predict 11 to 2 in favor.

It is going to be a squeaker. 7-6.

Agree on the squeaker, I think a lot of them want to have it both ways.

grovester wrote:Agree on the squeaker, I think a lot of them want to have it both ways.

Definitely. I still feel that the prevailing argument is that KCMO voted >70% for this airport and voters want it now. They don't want it delayed by another round of infighting or litigation that could last for years.

Let's get it built so I can get a decent sandwich and a direct flight.

There is a pact of council that will vote the same way.....and I don't think they can get to 7 ..so when it comes down to it they won't want to be on the minority side.

KCPowercat wrote:There is a pact of council that will vote the same way.....and I don't think they can get to 7 ..so when it comes down to it they won't want to be on the minority side.

I hope you're correct!

I'm far from confident in that prediction

KCPowercat wrote:I'm far from confident in that prediction

Was at Councilwoman's office hours yesterday, here is the layout she gave:

Firm yes: James, Justus, Reed, Shields, Cannady
Shaky: McManus, Lucas, Hall
No: Barnes, Taylor, Wagner, Loar

While Lucas was a sponsor of the ordinance, he apparently has been pretty mute on his position. Was telling everyone he was a Yes, unless a bombshell dropped. So if Wagner's FB post was a "bombshell" then I assume he will vote no.

What about Fowler?

What is the basis for voting against? Minority and union kickbacks not high enough? This can’t be the only reason since the Northland Republicans are against it.

Burns and Mac or AECOM influence ....

Union wanting 100% Union jobs but also MBE/WBE not high enough goals....both of those can't be satisfied.

I'm assuming a lot just want to switch to burns and mac still. Much better for their political careers.

kboish wrote:What about Fowler?

Sorry, I believe Fowler is in the shaky yes column as well.

WoodDraw wrote:I'm assuming a lot just want to switch to burns and mac still. Much better for their political careers.

Which, if true, is a real shame. Keep in mind B&M finished last in the RFP and were disqualified based on a few of their answers. Are we just planning to turn a blind eye to that and gift them the project? Doubtful.