KCRag Forum

StrangerThings wrote: Drive up to Zona Rosa and you'll see more empty space.

Was there a few weeks ago.

The expansion area from how many years ago (?) still hasn't filled. The entire center is over filled with clothing stores, unless that's your shopping goal there's little reason to go and eventually you have enough clothing and don't need to go back as quickly. That hurts overall foot traffic.

About the only new idea for a store I have seen in years was a place that was 90% beef jerky. They provided a clear value that if you want this product you will find something you want and will want to go there. Sadly it was next to The Legends which has sold on the courthouse steps and is mostly clothing over and over.

Picking the wrong store means alienating potential customers to the district as a whole. The goal is to bring them in for X and they also try Y. Cordish isn't stupid and hopefully they can afford to not be.

Any Hyatt restaurant or retail hopefully is filled with the same goal in mind, of being something that provides value so people want to make the effort to walk inside.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ition.html

And now Dan Coffey and his group is starting another petition drive to stop the hotel. This is a bit absurd

kboish wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ition.html

And now Dan Coffey and his group is starting another petition drive to stop the hotel. This is a bit absurd

Just sent a scathing letter to 'ol Dan. Damn these people piss me off!!!!!!!

From what I have read, there seems to be quite a bit of doubt whether the Missouri Supreme Court decisions even apply in this case. Frankly, I think Coffey and his group should be on the line financially for any added costs their efforts create.

Since contracts have already been signed and the Council has approved the project, can the developers still move forward?

miz.jordan17 wrote:Since contracts have already been signed and the Council has approved the project, can the developers still move forward?

Move forward with what? Right now I believe they still need a final maximum cost from JE Dunn. And then close financing. They all kind of act in a series of dominoes though. Any petition or lawsuit short term would be just annoying; long term, serious.

The hypocrisy of this group is unbelievable. Groups like this make me feel like they have nothing better to do than create conspiracy theories and go over details with a fine tooth comb.

Almost seems like a self-fulfilling reverse cargo cult? Start with the ideological premise that government doesn't work, then make sure it doesn't by stopping them from doing anything, then pat yourself on the back for being so much smarter than all the rubes?

Just a random shot in the dark.

It sure seems like sour grapes that they file a petition after the project is approved after filing another petition that was thrown out.

It's no secret the city was working on a convention hotel for like a decade. They had plenty of time to file a petition before the city announced anytime.

Is this new petition capable of slowing construction even more?

JBmidtown wrote:Is this new petition capable of slowing construction even more?

Most likely, although there are other variables that could slow it down too.

Here is what still needs to happen before dirt can be moved
- Petition shenanigans worked through
- Guaranteed max. price for construction
- Securing financing
- Iron out the transfer of the Hereford Association property and city owned lots


Even before the petition came about, I thought September ground breaking seemed ambitious.

Has the city cleared all of it's property yet? Last I heard there were still complications even there.

.

pash wrote: In a decision last year on the lawsuit over whether the ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage should be allowed to proceed, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city government cannot keep otherwise qualifying initiatives off the ballot merely because it argues that they are illegal; it must let all initiatives that meet the requirements set out in state law go to a vote, then it can fight those that pass in court when it thinks they're illegal. Seems fairly reasonable, no?

Except, as you point out, the court ruled on an initiative petition. this is a referendum on actions already passed by the council. It is not certain that the court's ruling applies to both. I think its pretty clear there is a big difference between allowing voters to decide on new laws, rules, and regulations proposed for the city (regardless of the legality of the proposal- which is what the supreme court's ruling is in response to) as opposed to the effects of constantly overturning council decisions, especially those related to using funds within their legal purpose and the execution of contracts. Many would say there are things that are within the purview of the elected official and not subject to referendum. But, there is, of course, a possibility the ruling could extend to referendums for reasons I am unaware...

My previous point aside, I think this will delay the hotel.

.

Sure there is a difference. An initiative petition must be a full new law. it can repeal or replace an existing ordinance in addition to being a new, full law

A referendum simply repeals a portion or entirety of an ordinance passed within the past 40 days.

There are different signature thresholds to initiate each kind.

https://www.municode.com/library/mo/kan ... E_S710REPE

edit: Upon closer reading- I guess referendums can only repeal ordinances, while initiatives could do either make a new one/replace an old ordinance? I'm not certain what the difference really is then or why the difference in thresholds- But, as stated, it will certainly impede the hotel.

.

As a further aside related to referendums- the council can pass a "referendum proof" ordinance if it is passed with an "accelerated effective date". The Mayor and Council are fully aware of this and have passed incentive ordinances with an accelerated effective date in the past (ostensibly with the purpose of avoiding a referendum). Considering this hotel's contentious past, it is curious that they did not pass this ordinance with an accelerate effective date to protect it from a referendum.

pash wrote:I understand that CFRG is not well liked in this crowd, but I don't see where sour grapes or hypocrisy enters the picture. Further, even if you like the idea of a new convention hotel, I think it's absurd to pretend that CFRG's opposition is g

They're hypocrites because they want to ensure that tax payer dollars are spent properly, yet, as we've all pointed out, they had years to do that prior to this announcement of the hotel that would not have cost tax payers as much as the recent petition will do. Not to mention, if you really want to protect tax payer dollars, make that a political point when voting so as to minimize the impact to tax payer dollars. Lastly, they definitely seem to be in the minority when it comes to recent initiatives. GO bond passed with significant majority, etc... At this time, they're truly only being obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists.