KCRag Forum

grovester wrote:There are just as many entities that WANT more elections as don't, to confuse issues and drive down turnout. It's part of the game and won't likely change.

beautyfromashes wrote:^ I get the frustration and tend to agree, but Kansas City is a very conservative town. We are mostly content and don't compare ourselves much to other cities. That's bad when you're trying to make progress in making the city better...but it's a positive during recessions when other markets crash and we stay steady.

KCPowercat wrote:I've used the Pittsburgh analogy as well but honestly they are doing it because their current buildings and train shuttle are way too expensive to operate now that their hub operations has gone away...kinda sad story for them.

SingleMalt12 wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:I've used the Pittsburgh analogy as well but honestly they are doing it because their current buildings and train shuttle are way too expensive to operate now that their hub operations has gone away...kinda sad story for them.

It is a perfect analogy. You can put either kc or pitt in the following sentense: The current terminal was built for a different situation and now it's partially empty and expensive to operate.

The fact is that Pittsburgh is actually building a new terminal and kansas city is dancing around and right now no one knows when or if a new terminal will be built. The sad story is Kansas City. Both airports have seen an increase in numbers. One airport is insufficient. The other is doing something about it.

As I said, what the hell is in the water in KC?

ldai_phs wrote:But as I understand it, this is only going to a vote because of the petition due to it being private funds.

hartliss wrote:

ldai_phs wrote:But as I understand it, this is only going to a vote because of the petition due to it being private funds.

That is part of the vote, the other is due to MO law that puts any bond issuance to vote. Even if they are privately obtained bonds.

pash wrote:It's not accurate. The November vote is not required by law; it's happening only because the Council decided they wanted to let people vote on whether a new terminal should happen.

There will have to be a second vote, as required by state law, if the Council eventually decides to finance a new terminal using standard airport revenue bonds, since the inane ballot language the Council drew up for the vote in November specifically does not authorize their use. It looks like Edgemoor has been more forthcoming about the advantages of airport revenue bonds than some of the charlatans previously involved, so who knows, we might actually end up in the absurd situation of asking voters to approve this thing twice.