KCRag Forum

DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:50 am

DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.

Can’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!

DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:15 am

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:50 am

DMNBT_RCJH wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:16 am This is going to be a snoozer. Biggest question will be whether the “Yes’s” can get to 35%. It won’t be close, unfortunately.

Can’t wait to blast you later tonight after the vote!

I hope you get to! I voted yes. I think the coalition of no voters is much broader than people realize.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.

mourban wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:36 am

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.

There’s no way they close the 670 lid to the public.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:35 am Here was the criteria I needed to vote yes and how I see it played out:
What I need:
- Messaging from the Royals showing care for displaced businesses, sufficient purchase price for buildings and attempts to relocate in surrounding areas.
Yes, it seems that the Royals are attempting to work with business owners and have taken a better tone concerning joining the Crossroads vs "transforming".
- Plan to keep Oak open in some form.
Yes, I believe the commitment from the Royals to keep Oak open.
- Commitment to keep the 670 park public and always open to citizens.
Still a concern for me and there has been no real progress on the park during this process.
- While not a deal killer, I’d prefer removal of the pedestrian bridge in order to keep people walking on the street or use of Buck Bridge truces to show history of the city. Would also like orientation facing DT proper.
I think the commitment to keep Oak open and changes to the east Oak business plan will change this design feature though no true signal.
- Financial plans showing where funds will be spent before the election with legal commitment from the Royals to spend funds in a timely number of years. No “2nd phase”, “3rd Phase” that never happens.
No, I'm disappointed in the lack of transparency and work towards financial commitment.
- commitment from the city to immediately sell off EV property that they own in small chunks and push for development of that area. Push should be for buildings with height.
No, there has been zero discussion from the city about what happens to East Village after this vote.
- all parking structures are beneath other buildings and have streetfront activation.
Yes, while the Royals have said there will be one parking garage built for the development, they seem committed to limiting garages and keep them from disrupting walkability.

TheUrbanRoo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:27 am You people think too much about online comment sections and less about the actual data & history of these votes which is that pass literally 98% of the time anywhere in the country. That's a much much better indicator. So yeah, it'll prob pass, and yes I will be dunking all over Grid and co. tonight after it.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:45 am I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:46 am I would not conflate EV with the stadium vote. It's a separate matter that has nothing to do with merits of the EV location. Even if the land had not been banked, I suspect EV would look pretty similar to what it does today.

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:53 am
I will say that the “yard sign wars” have been pretty even on this matter. I swear I have seen an equal number of yes signs to no signs.

DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 am

I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were sharing a fake document as if it was an official joint statement as well as continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:12 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 am

I saw KCTenants were up to their lies last night. They were sharing a fake document as if it was an official joint statement as well as continuing to push the idea that this is a new tax.

I got that same document in an email from the chiefs. Are you saying they changed the words?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:59 am

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:46 am I would not conflate EV with the stadium vote. It's a separate matter that has nothing to do with merits of the EV location. Even if the land had not been banked, I suspect EV would look pretty similar to what it does today.

I disagree. East Village would look something like East Crossroads if not landbanked.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:58 am

DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 10:45 am I agree, outside of perhaps the occasional event that may require a ticket and security perimeter.

This is what I'm talking about. It should be open 100% of the time. I don't want any entity being able to close it like a road whenever they want.