KC grows in census challenge

[LenexatoKCMO]

EAT IT SACRAMENTO!!!!

AND FRESNO!  Couldn't have happened to a nicer couple of shitholes. 

[kcjak]

Then again, if Lawrence was part of the KC MSA, our canine sodomy rate would have just risen dramatically.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 20981.html

Maybe the KC MSA canine sodomy population was undercounted 

[voltopt]

I agree with Chrizow - its probably a wash when there is a gain at 64th and N. Whatever - because there is most likely a loss somewhere in the core.

One of the things that bothers me most about how suburban growth is quantified is that its never compared to metropolitan gains - it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that 75% of suburban growth is just existing metro residents relocating. 

How is that good economic new for the whole metro?

[LenexatoKCMO]

Then again, if Lawrence was part of the KC MSA, our canine sodomy rate would have just risen dramatically.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 20981.html

Yeah but the Lawrence MSA die-cast car molestation rate would have also just risen dramatically

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking ... 21136.html

Man charged with lewd behavior in toy aisle at Shawnee Wal-Mart


What in the hell is wrong with people? 

[dangerboy]

I agree with Chrizow - its probably a wash when there is a gain at 64th and N. Whatever - because there is most likely a loss somewhere in the core.

Most of the under-count is in the core.  Poor folks who move around a lot, minorities and immigrants who refuse to participate in the Census, people who w/o bank accounts who only operate with cash, etc.  The consultants who studied this for the city found the most uncounted people on the East Side, not, I-29.

[chrizow]

Most of the under-count is in the core.  Poor folks who move around a lot, minorities and immigrants who refuse to participate in the Census, people who w/o bank accounts who only operate with cash, etc.  The consultants who studied this for the city found the most uncounted people on the East Side, not, I-29.

yeah, but "under-count" does not reflect "growth."  the population growth in KC is almost certainly way up north, while the urban core is losing. 

chrizow, you will never get it and I will never quite get your JoCo bias.

i don't really have a JoCo bias.  i do, however, have a pro-urban core bias.  i am not blindly pro "KCMO" b/c i think that the sprawl up north (and way down south and way out east) is abominable - possibly even worse than JoCo sprawl.  it's insane to me that KCPD and KCFD are out traversing rural roads 20 miles north or southeast of downtown (in the knobtown area). 

i have a "JoCo bias" in the sense that the JoCo suburbs at least have something to offer in terms of shopping, restaurants, etc.  the mo-side suburbs make me want to puke.  that's not JoCo bias, though.  i abhor sprawl in general.  it just so happens that JoCo sprawl has good restaurants and other amenities. 

It's better for a lot of reasons that I won't go into here. Just like West County sprawl is better for metro StL than metro east or st charles sprawl.

none of those places are good for STL City.  at least metro east has light-rail into town.  Chesterfield may as well be out in St. Charles County.  with their "Corporate Woods" area along 40/270, they no doubt have leached jobs and opportunities from STL City (and even Clayton).  it's a sprawling disaster that does nothing but take away from the city, the ecosystem around the city, etc.  i see very little reason to parse municpal lines to determine what's good or bad.  if i eat a shit sandwich in O'Fallon, MO, it's just as bad as a shit sandwich i eat in Creve Coeur, MO or Collinsville, IL.

Cities have suburbs, 90% of the regional population will be in a suburban setting, not only here, but in nearly every city in America.

Time to come back down to earth.  Having those people in KCMO, MO, etc is far better for the future of KC as a whole than having them in Kansas.  Same deal with LS, BS etc, only to a much lesser extent.  KC needs to fill up that land up there, suburban or not and KCMO, as well as MO needs more of the area’s residents, especially the wealthy or middle class residents.  Not sure why that is so hard to comprehend.

this view is certainly very realistic, and i understand that.  i just cringe when i hear that the success of KCMO somehow depends on the northland becoming another JoCo.  it's just a continuation of the same suburban slap-in-the-face that helped cause the urban core to decline over the last 50 years.  it might even be worse, since KCMO is doing it to itself ("let's try to build up our urban core while also trying to compete with OP/Olathe/LS/BS/etc. in the beige sprawl arms race!") 

[ignatius]

So does this increase the populations for Jax/Platte counties as well?

[warwickland]

A question I have is how can we ascertain if KC north sprawl is having a positive effect south of the river since the near half century (or whatever) KCMO jumped the river? Its never struck me as being a massive advantage, as a more neutral (or even slightly destructive to the "southland?") distraction.

[GRID]

chrizow, you gotta be kidding me.

First off, much of the MO side it more "leapfrogging" type growth because of topography.  River valleys, flood plains, rock, parkland, industrial corridors and political boundaries and the western parts of JoCo are nearly identical to that of east jax and the northland for that very reason.

JoCo was a giant flat piece of land that even had a farm access grid of roads set up every mile that only needed to be widened.  A flat piece of land that was not threatened by school desegregation, an area that was not a part of “black flight” which still moves south and southeast today, an area that was not being taxed for urban issues like museums, stadiums, transit, health care and housing for the poor etc and an area that was able to lure companies to JoCo from a massive pool of kcmo companies for four decades and then the wealthy residents followed.  All closer to the city than most of the MO suburbs.

You do have joco bias and I think you are pretty hilarious trying to deny it while saying you are "pro urban core" but like JoCo in the same damn paragraph.  You like JoCo.  Admit it.  If I still lived in the city, I wouldn’t drive out to JoCo for dining.  That’s me though.  West County growth in StL Blows.  But it's better than St Charles growth, far better.

As a planned, suburban community, I'll admit it, they know what they are doing and how to take advantage of what they can to make the county what it is and that means taking advantage of their topography, their imaginary isolated location in the metro due to the state line, and their ability to lure companies from KCMO.

The entire basic of their existence is based off this.

So, I don’t know how you can possibly not think that if all of those JoCo office parks were in the Northland rather than KS, then KCMO would be a different animal today.  Imagine KCMO with 800,000 residents, most of the metro’s jobs etc and JoCo as a smaller, more residential version of what it is today.

You don’t think the urban core of KCMO would have benefited from that?  You don’t think the MO side would have more resources or the density to build light rail or build downtown stadiums or fund the zoo properly?

I can’t even comprehend how much better off KC would be if all that stuff on College, Renner, Metcalf etc were along I-29 instead of in Kansas.

Do you honestly think that the houses along 152 came at the expense of the urban core of KCMO?  They came at the expense of other suburbs.

The urban core of KCMO competes with the urban core of Denver and Minneapolis.  People that don’t want to live in a suburb.

Sprawl is no fun.  But it’s the way it is.  95% of the people in this metro live in a suburban area, even 80% of those that live in KCMO.  This is true for nearly every major metro area.

So, my point is that if you are going to sprawl, sprawl in a way that benefits you and the way KC has sprawled has created horrific results so-far, at least up till about the year 2000.  If the metro was still growing today the way it was in 1995 (80% of all metro growth was in JoCo), this city, this entire metro area would be dead today.

But you would have lots of fancy places to eat and shop in one of the largest suburban counties in the nation.  But the city as a whole, would not even be a second or third tier city.  We would have been Mesa next to Buffalo by 2020.

[cdm2p]

From what I read this morning, population growth is attributed to growth up north and Downtown.
Growth up north is a natural thing.  Growth downtown is a sign of success.

[rxlexi]

  great post Grid.  I think you sum up the unfortunate need for Northland success quite well...if we're going to sprawl, then let's set up a system wherein we are capturing tax revenue that can be equitably invested in the urban core as well. 

  It's the same idea as regional governance type of merger, although Northland growth has been pretty poorly executed until recently.  If, as you say, we had contained a large chunk of the office space along College/Corporate Woods etc. within KCMO city limits up north, the city would be in much better shape.  Unfortunately, at this point in time we're still just maintaining the infrastructure with very little payback.

  I see Chrizow's point, and it is a good one, if a bit idealistic.  It's unfortunate that the largest portion of growth in the city comes from shitty sprawling northland subdivisions and strip malls, but the theory that large-scale growth up north could benefit the entire city still holds true, IMO.  New homes that sell in KCMO north are generally replacing new homes that would sell in Olathe, Lenexa, BS, whatever.  But they're generating property taxes for KCMO...so it becomes the lesser of two evils I suppose. 

  Northland growth has certainly not proven to be any kind of panacea for the urban core, and may never prove to be terribly helpful (JoCo has already corned the suburban office market pretty handily)...but if poorly planned developments that don't benefit the urban core are going to happen, and they are, we might as well direct them into the KCMO tax base.

[dangerboy]

The goal wasn't just to count people.  Another very important goal was to quantify the undocumented economy - people living on cash, under the radar, etc.  They found that there is a lot more wealth in supposedly "poor" neighborhoods than anyone thought existed.  Other cities have used this data recruit business and retail to areas that are starved for it.

[cdm2p]

The goal wasn't just to count people.  Another very important goal was to quantify the undocumented economy - people living on cash, under the radar, etc.  They found that there is a lot more wealth in supposedly "poor" neighborhoods than anyone thought existed.  Other cities have used this data recruit business and retail to areas that are starved for it.

I've sat through far too many meetings where people from other parts of the city are basically guilt tripped into making concessions to the east side.  If we can document the magnitude of an underground economy, we can probably estimate the amount of potential revenue that goes uncollected.  Wouldn't it be nice if that money was actually paid to City Hall?

[chrizow]

chrizow, you gotta be kidding me.

You do have joco bias and I think you are pretty hilarious trying to deny it while saying you are "pro urban core" but like JoCo in the same damn paragraph.  You like JoCo.  Admit it.  If I still lived in the city, I wouldn’t drive out to JoCo for dining.  That’s me though. 

just to clarify:  i don't like JoCo.  i don't drive out there for dining.  i was just saying that, compared to the mo-side suburbs, there is more of that sort of thing in JoCo.  as you say, JoCo is closer to the core than the MO-side suburbs - indeed, westwood, fairway, parts of prairie village, etc. feel like an extension of the plaza/brookside area.  the MO-side burbs aren't connected to anything.  i can understand your argument that exurbs in the "kcmo" limits are somehow better (even if i disagree), but non-kcmo MO-side burbs have no upside to them whatsoever in my opinion.  lee's summit?  blue springs?  liberty?  gladstone? 

So, I don’t know how you can possibly not think that if all of those JoCo office parks were in the Northland rather than KS, then KCMO would be a different animal today.  Imagine KCMO with 800,000 residents, most of the metro’s jobs etc and JoCo as a smaller, more residential version of what it is today.

sorry, but i dont really like this choice.  you have to realize that my perspective is an idealistic one that would rather none of these office parks existed to begin with - on college blvd, i-29, anywhere.  thus, i do not support the addition of sprawl, in any form, anywhere in this metro area.  clearly my hopes do not comport with reality, but as such i am not going to applaud or encourage something i think is an epic drain on our society (sprawl) just b/c it might be located in the bloated, annexed "city limits" of kcmo. 

[phxcat]

chrizow, you gotta be kidding me.

First off, much of the MO side it more "leapfrogging" type growth because of topography.  River valleys, flood plains, rock, parkland, industrial corridors and political boundaries and the western parts of JoCo are nearly identical to that of east jax and the northland for that very reason.

JoCo was a giant flat piece of land that even had a farm access grid of roads set up every mile that only needed to be widened.  A flat piece of land that was not threatened by school desegregation, an area that was not a part of “black flight” which still moves south and southeast today, an area that was not being taxed for urban issues like museums, stadiums, transit, health care and housing for the poor etc and an area that was able to lure companies to JoCo from a massive pool of kcmo companies for four decades and then the wealthy residents followed.  All closer to the city than most of the MO suburbs.

Which is why (ignoring the "black flight" thing which never affected any of the Missouri side suburbs until recently, and is actually affecting JoCo as well, in addition to Hispanic growth, for what it's worth, though I'm really not sure what that has to do with it besides your apparent need to tar JoCo residents as racists while claiming that Missouri residents are not) it is probably better that JoCo be continue to be the primary suburban area.  Geographically, it is set up for a level of density without the leap frog development that is not possible in many areas on the Missouri side.  Also, it would seem like more growth in KC North will lead to more of a suburban mentality among KC voters, and would actually hurt urban KCMO more than it would help.

[GRID]

chrizow, I agree with you, but I guess I'm more of a realist.

KC would be better and I'm sticking to that.

phxcat,  I like you and typically agree with your posts, but in this case, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about and you seem to be wearing some KS bias blinders.  You might want to do some research on "black" flight in KC and you will quickly find out why it went south and southeast and not into Kansas.  I'll give you a hint. Start with Leawood.

I'm not saying people in MO are any better with race relations than those in KS, but for the most part, JoCo has avoided the issue and for the most part, it was no accident.

Pull up any demographic map showing the history of black migration and you will see how it has moved into South KC (near south side) Hickman Mills, Ruskin, and further out south KC then Grandview and now Belton and Lee's Summit.

Blue Springs, Indy etc have had some black flight, probably similar to the KS burbs or the Northland.

I still think that KC would be more like a Denver and I-29 would be more like I-25 with the DTC, light rail etc.  KC has too much land.  I think if the Northland was more like a JoCo or South Denver and less like the sprawling rural/suburbs it has been, things would be different.  It's easy to say things would be worse.  But I'm not sure how.  The Northland has always supported things south of the river and today, Northland send more money south than they get back.  I'm sure those numbers would be even higher if the northland were built out.  If the Northland was more populated and had more office parks etc, why would they not want to pass light rail?  In JoCo, they don't want to have anything to do with KCMO, period.  In the Northland, they are KCMO.  Seems like that would make all the difference in the world.

[phxcat]

chrizow, I agree with you, but I guess I'm more of a realist.

KC would be better and I'm sticking to that.

phxcat,  I like you and typically agree with your posts, but in this case, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about and you seem to be wearing some KS bias blinders.  You might want to do some research on "black" flight in KC and you will quickly find out why it went south and southeast and not into Kansas.  I'll give you a hint. Start with Leawood.

I'm not saying people in MO are any better with race relations than those in KS, but for the most part, JoCo has avoided the issue and for the most part, it was no accident.

Pull up any demographic map showing the history of black migration and you will see how it has moved into South KC (near south side) Hickman Mills, Ruskin, and further out south KC then Grandview and now Belton and Lee's Summit.

Blue Springs, Indy etc have had some black flight, probably similar to the KS burbs or the Northland.

I still think that KC would be more like a Denver and I-29 would be more like I-25 with the DTC, light rail etc.  KC has too much land.  I think if the Northland was more like a JoCo or South Denver and less like the sprawling rural/suburbs it has been, things would be different.  It's easy to say things would be worse.  But I'm not sure how.  The Northland has always supported things south of the river and today, Northland send more money south than they get back.  I'm sure those numbers would be even higher if the northland were built out.  If the Northland was more populated and had more office parks etc, why would they not want to pass light rail?  In JoCo, they don't want to have anything to do with KCMO, period.  In the Northland, they are KCMO.  Seems like that would make all the difference in the world.

I assume you are talking about this?  http://kcresearch.org/cgi-bin/showfile. ... =11672.pdf  I hadn't seen it before, and it looks like it will take a while to read, but I will.  In the meantime, while I do agree that JoCo has, for the most part, avoided the problem, and, in the early decades of suburbanization, it may not have been an accident, I really don't believe that most Johnson Countians today move there to avoid Blacks, so much as because it has been the suburban area of choice for quite some time.  While the political boundaries have made economic integration more difficult, Independence really doesn't have the same issues but has, up until this point, done a far greater job of avoiding racial integration.  Again, not having yet read that study, I have assumed that the reason for black migration south has more to do with inertia than anything else- transportation moves southwest from the Plaza area and points north into Johnson County, but, beyond that, mostly moves from Shawnee Mission south into Blue Valley, whereas migration in Kansas City would move from the east side of Kansas City south into Grandview, Ruskin Heights and south KC , and that Lees Summit would be the next place for it to go.

From afar, I have used the school statistics on the Kansas Board of Education website to try to figure out what was going on, as that gives annual statistics on demographic changes at the school level.  (and have looked at the Missouri site, which is not quite as helpful, but does show black growth throughout the Missouri side schools) I have made the assumption that black flight on the Kansas side, and probably the Missouri side as well, was from displacement due to Hispanic growth in the Argentine-Rosedale and Central areas.  Black movement to the Shawnee Mission and Olathe areas has been significant, and similar to Missouri side schools, other than Lee's Summit.  Piper, however, on a much smaller scale, seems similar to Lee's Summit, in that it shows a general westward migration that would be similar to the southern migration on the Missouri side.  However, when it comes to problems faced by different parts of the metro, Hispanic growth in JoCo more than makes up for the difference in Black growth in most of the Missouri side, and presents more issues that must be dealt with due to language.

I probably should note that, while you probably see Blue Valley as representative of JoCo, I tend to refuse to admit that Blue Valley has anything to do with Kansas or JoCo.

ps- thanks for the Leawood tip.

[ShowME]

I'm not saying people in MO are any better with race relations than those in KS, but for the most part, JoCo has avoided the issue and for the most part, it was no accident.

Pull up any demographic map showing the history of black migration and you will see how it has moved into South KC (near south side) Hickman Mills, Ruskin, and further out south KC then Grandview and now Belton and Lee's Summit.

If you want to see an American version of the Berlin Wall go checkout the WalMart at 135th & State Line (Missouri side).  The customers and employees are probably 50% minorities.  Yet I could throw a rock to Leawood which is probably 2-4% minority.  Segregation at its finest.

[GRID]

phxcat, I've done a lot of research myself and most of it has come from people that lived through this era in KC when KC first began to spill into NE JoCo.

I have never seen that case study, but I too will read it.  But the history of keeping blacks out of JoCo runs pretty deep if you ever do get into it.  Nobody ever wants to talk about that though and it's pretty much swept under the rug.  It's not just the momentum or it wasn't at the time.  I have always found it ironic since Kansans love to use the words freestate to Missourians.  The history of the KC area is pretty amazing really and it has almost nothing to do with either state since the city developed on a state line, a state line that was barely recognized in the early years.

The real-estate industry in this town from the 50’s right up to the 90’s was simply deplorable.  There was so much money to be made in JoCo and everybody that could took advantage of that.

I just get tired of hearing about how JoCo is the perfect suburb.  Believe me, it's not.  The county grew nearly entirely at the expense of KCMO and KCK and it was more than just sprawl.

I agree, today, I don't blame the current residents, but I do wish more of them knew a bit more about KC, both sides of the state line and the history of the area.  I think there would be a lot more respect out there from both sides toward the other.  I think JoCo has come a long way and I wouldn't think a black family would have any more problems living there than in any MO suburb (although I think most feel more comfortable in LS than say OP). But the way JoCo got to where they are today and the way they continue to do things that do more harm to the metropolitan area than good such as continuing to lure KCMO companies and refusing to be more involved in metrowide cooperation issues that we desperately need them to be more involved in now, is disheartening.

I can put aside how JoCo got where they are today, It’s difficlult, but I can put that aside.  I can’t put aside the things they do today that still drive a stake into the heart of this region though.  When ¼ of your metro population, ½ of your metro economy and the second largest county in your metro acts as if the rest of the KCMO area is some sort of enemy, this town will simply never ever reach its potential.  That’s pretty hard to forgive since that very county is only there because of the rest of the metro…

[Tosspot]

(clickable to Amazon page)

there I saved y'all the trouble yet again.