KCRag Forum

chrizow wrote: i think that a lot of time the "schools are bad!" line is just a (conscious or unconscious) proxy for irrational fears based on perception of race and crime in the city. 

Very true. Especially when you consider that Missouri districts like Park Hill and Lee's Summit actually have higher test scores and whiter student populations than Kansas districts like Shawnee Mission and Olathe.

one economic reality (whether there's reasoning for it or not) is that school ratings affect property values, whether you have kids or not.  i think people put too much emphasis on it, but it is what it is.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: So the qoutes about the decision keying on the interests and location of their existing employees was a total fabrication?  Heatherkay's point clearly  isn't 100% of the problem behind DT job creation - but the lack of educated, white collar employees living anywhere near the urban core in significant numbers definitely has to be considered a factor in why large employers don't locate there.  As long as 90+ percent of the workface at these employers continues to reside at the suburban peripheries of town, any company considering DT is going to have to factor that the majority of their workforce will likely consider the new location a negative. 

Yes.  it's bogus in my opinion.  90% of the workforce in most cities lives in the burbs.

chrizow wrote: i really don't think people in this metro relocate near their offices very often.  hell, it's not uncommon at all to have people commute from 1-2 hours away!  95th/state line = 119th and metcalf = whatever else.  "downtown" is different, and people get up in arms over it because it's different, seems like a "hassle," is dangerous, etc.  if JP Morgan moved their offices to lee's summit or N. 64th or olathe, i dont think it would raise that much of a stink.

This.

kard wrote: one economic reality (whether there's reasoning for it or not) is that school ratings affect property values, whether you have kids or not.  i think people put too much emphasis on it, but it is what it is.

Yet during the recession, urban neighborhoods in "bad" school districts have experienced far less drop in sale prices and housing values than suburban neighborhoods in "good" school districts.  

It's also important to know that Missouri has some of the highest testing standards in the country.  The bar for evaluating schools is much higher than in Kansas.  So a school that isn't meeting Adequate Yearly Progress in Missouri may be just fine if it was in a less rigorous state like Kansas.

chrizow wrote: maybe a discussion for another thread, but i think that a lot of time the "schools are bad!" line is just a (conscious or unconscious) proxy for irrational fears based on perception of race and crime in the city. 

I think the best thing to do is a straight out 'shame on you' campaign.  We're too busy trying to hold JOCO's hand that someone needs to stand up and shoot it straight.  You've abandoned your heart.  You don't care about the less fortunate.  There is an underlying racism.  Have some pride in your city!

beautyfromashes wrote: I think the best thing to do is a straight out 'shame on you' campaign.  We're too busy trying to hold JOCO's hand that someone needs to stand up and shoot it straight.  You've abandoned your heart.  You don't care about the less fortunate.  There is an underlying racism.  Have some pride in your city!

Get Kanye West to do a "Johnson County doesn't care about black people" take-off on his Katrina/Bush statements. Would be a huge hit, I'm sure.

KCPowercat wrote: to be fair he's focused on screwing up basic services to have this on his plate as well.

Cauthen did that.

beautyfromashes wrote: The school thing is getting bogus! I have school aged children and there are options out there.  I'm just not going to jump ship from the city I love so my kids can go to whitebread Kansas and not experience different races, different classes and different thought.  It's cowardly.  

If you think that all suburban schools are whitebread, rich kids then you have your eyes glued closed.  Yeah, whites may be in the majority but there are a wide variety of races in a large majority of the schools.  And there are even kids on the school lunch program..

Not saying you should move, but parents have many reasons why they move or not move to a location.

GRID wrote: When the largest, most affluent county in your entire metro area doesn't give a rip about the city in general, doesn't contribute a dime of public revenue to regional issues or assets, grows economically almost entirely at the expense of KCMO (rather than bringing in new jobs from outside the region) all while producing a general population that is not only intimidated by KCMO, but totally and completely lacks any respect or civic pride for KCMO (or the entire MO side) whatsoever you have problems that go way beyond your typical urban vs suburban situations you find in most metropolitan areas.

Was visiting family in the Des Moines area recently.  Of course, like many cities, Des Moines is having revenue generation problems - like KCMO.  DM is trying to get a Des Moines area sales tax to help Des Moines with its funded "area-wide" civic responsibilities but needless to say the surrounding communites are saying "NO WAY". 

As I've stated before, much of KCMO's problem has to do with residential. Nothing else matters much if few people want to live in the older parts of your city, where most of the infastructure is.

One of the problems with KCMO south of the river is that probably 50 percent of the housing stock is deemed undesirable by a lot of modern home-buyers and renters.  Just look at a map some day and you will see the physical size of existing neighborhoods east of Troost between Independence Avenue and 75th Street. They make up a large swath of the city itself south of the river. When the city was around 500,000 in population in 1970, a lot of the city's population still lived south of the river. Now about 300,000 do.

Most of the original population loss has occurred east of Troost between Independence Avenue and 63rd Street. The housing stock in these neighborhoods is just not desirable for many reasons: bad schools, higher crime, blight, abandonment, lack of jobs, few retail services, etc.

Many of the properties are very run down, outdated, and most people aren't willing to engage in the adventure of renovating them.

Even if you can find a decent house, the neighborhood may be problematic. Are there vacant lots next door that are overgrown with weeds and covered in trash? Is the house burned out, or a drug den? Do the neighbors have broken down cars parked in their driveway?

Even if you were inclined to renovate, can you get a loan to buy the house, or pay for the renovation?  Many lending institutions simply won't give loans in these neighborhoods.

To retain its' tax base, Kansas City's solution so far has been to retain its' original base population by doubling its' physical land area, and creating new housing there in undeveloped areas. The problem with that is now you have twice the infastructure to maintain and you've not gained any new taxpayers.

In the older parts of the city, the infastructure has not been maintained, and so more people have fled those parts of the city.

For KCMO to be successful and healthy in the future, it must create as much new housing as possible in neighborhoods south of the river, and add new population there.

KCPowercat wrote: this jp morgan decision wasn't made by anybody who has school aged kids in kc...come on.

only 35-40% of households in kc (can't remember exact %) even have school aged kids...using 'bad schools' is a cop out....jp moved to the cheapest lease rate....sprint could give that to them because of their tax breaks...seems pretty simple....overall net loss for the entire metro.

That's a bit misleading as a lot of people who no longer have school-age kids selected their homes on the basis of schools when their kids were school age and a lot of people who anticipate having children select their homes on the basis of school.  Furthermore, some people who will never have kids want the resale value of a home in a good school district (I know a gay couple who did just that).  Schools are the overriding reason in the majority of home choices, particularly when the potential home owner has the requisite wealth to be able to choose. 

point was....kc residents didn't decide this.

akp...basic services were improving under cauthen for a time...surveys showed...nice try.

KCPowercat wrote: akp...basic services were improving under cauthen for a time...surveys showed...nice try.

But they have recently declined.  Cauthen was the CM and the one directly in charge of and responsible for the city staff.

the mayor's goal was improved basic services....same CM was improving those under the prior mayor yet suddenly when a new mayor comes in they get worse ratings....this doesn't take a rocket surgeon.

KCPowercat wrote: the mayor's goal was improved basic services....same CM was improving those under the prior mayor yet suddenly when a new mayor comes in they get worse ratings....this doesn't take a rocket surgeon.

or a rocket scientist 

timberwolfrider wrote: does a rocket surgeon operate on rockets?

No, it is a rocket who went to medical school... or perhaps the guy who operated on Yao Ming.

KCPowercat wrote: the mayor's goal was improved basic services....same CM was improving those under the prior mayor yet suddenly when a new mayor comes in they get worse ratings....this doesn't take a rocket surgeon.

There are many reasons, but as been reported the relations between the CM and many on the council were sour or getting that way.  That is why it was recommended that Eddy be hired (again the first CM that had to have a chief-of-staff).

Kinda like the baseball manager who was manager-of-the-year and less than two years later is fired.


As one person said, Cauthen may have been the CM when the emphasis was on development but as times and finances got tough he was out of his league.