Bluhawk

Find out what's going on in the Sunflower State's portions of the Metro here.
User avatar
TrolliKC
Supporter
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:27 am

Re: Bluhawk

Post by TrolliKC »

and the sprawl keeps sprawling...

bchociej
Ambassador
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:02 pm
Location: Mission

Re: Bluhawk

Post by bchociej »

TrolliKC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:57 pm
and the sprawl keeps sprawling...
It's depressing. You know they're gonna drop another few billion dollars widening highways, only to wonder why traffic isn't getting any better.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Bluhawk

Post by flyingember »

bchociej wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:35 am
TrolliKC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:57 pm
and the sprawl keeps sprawling...
It's depressing. You know they're gonna drop another few billion dollars widening highways, only to wonder why traffic isn't getting any better.
There's no questioning being done. The laws around parking minimums come from lobbying from the road construction industry

empires228
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: Bluhawk

Post by empires228 »

TrolliKC wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:57 pm
and the sprawl keeps sprawling...
But please tell me that you have a problem with it on the Missouri side too. There are a lot of people in Facebook groups and on other Kansas City related forms (reddit/city data) that seem to only have a problem with sprawl when it’s in Johnson County, but seem to have no issue with the same in Belton, Raymore, Greenwood, Grain Valley, etc. It’s funny because we’re at the point where legends is closer to downtown than the new suburban sprawl out in Belton, eastern Blue Springs, and Grain Valley. Looking at a Google map and setting everything to the same point in downtown, BluHawk is closer to downtown than Lee’s Summit Medical Center. Not trying to defend sprawl by any means, but it’s interesting to see how many people have an issue with it on one side of the state line, but rarely talk about it on the other even if they do have an issue.
StL_Dan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:27 pm
empires228 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:51 am
TrolliKC wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:14 pm
I really hate bluhawk and everything it stands for, but thanks for the photo. Crane looks cool
I mean like it or not homes are being built south of BVSW and a lot are being built near west. It might not be long before this area has the population to support it, something the Prairie Fire/Corbin Park area has struggled to obtain as of yet. A lot of the homes around BVSW are zoned to Spring Hill, so be looking for a Spring Hill north in the near future if the pace keeps up.
SH North HS. Mind boggling to think about.
As far as I can tell the homeowners association’s that were filing the complaints about not being in the blue Valley District didn’t get anywhere, so we probably aren’t that far out if some of those subdivisions actually get built to completion. I don’t see blue Valley building another high school because Southwest has struggled to fill up and is around 600 under capacity because the people that moved down there when the school opened are now empty-nesters, and also because several of their closest subdivisions are zoned to Spring Hill and Olathe. Southwest also took a small incoming student hit because Stillwell Elementary just went back to being a BV High feeder. The last I knew the fastest growing districts in the metro were Gardner, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, DeSoto, and Spring Hill. I would be on the watch for DeSoto to end up with a third high school and the same with Blue Springs.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: Bluhawk

Post by grovester »

The reason Bluhawk is such an egregious example is that it's the same municipality that sprawls from county line to the north to this place.

They are cannibalizing their own resources.

KCMO is for sure sprawly, but when you start comparing different cities, they all have their own self interest, Lees Summit, Blue Springs have always been where they are.

A case could be made that the counties should step up.

Everyone should de-annex. OP at 87th Street, Shawnee at Pflumm, KCMO at the river and Swope Park.

alejandro46
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Bluhawk

Post by alejandro46 »

grovester wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:49 pm
The reason Bluhawk is such an egregious example is that it's the same municipality that sprawls from county line to the north to this place.

They are cannibalizing their own resources.

KCMO is for sure sprawly, but when you start comparing different cities, they all have their own self interest, Lees Summit, Blue Springs have always been where they are.

A case could be made that the counties should step up.

Everyone should de-annex. OP at 87th Street, Shawnee at Pflumm, KCMO at the river and Swope Park.
I would like to see some data regarding the amount of money put in to the Northland vs. how much revenue is generated. With the e-tax, the city is still able to capture a fair amount of revenue but I am near certain it won't cover the expense involved in taking care of that huge amount of land.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8156
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Bluhawk

Post by flyingember »

alejandro46 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I would like to see some data regarding the amount of money put in to the Northland vs. how much revenue is generated. With the e-tax, the city is still able to capture a fair amount of revenue but I am near certain it won't cover the expense involved in taking care of that huge amount of land.
Let's look at just property tax and road repair costs to show the scale of the problem.

To mill and resurface a two lane road is apparently about $1.25 million per mile.

Let's assume the average northland home would apparaise at $200k and the property tax gained per home for the city is $600 per year.
I picked a random street and figure the maximum number of suburban style homes is 110 per mile (55 per side)
110*600 = $66,000 per year

Let's say each of those homes has two cars around 5 years old and worth $15k on average. That's another ~$65 per year.
So our number is up to $73150 per year


If we take 100% of every home's property taxes in the northland and dedicate it to road repair it will take 17 years to cover this expense.



Now think about this in terms of comparison
A single $350k home around Staley (appriased value) and they pay $1000 to the city in property taxes
Let's say someone lives in an east side home appraised at 75k and they pay $215 to the city in property taxes

Let's make them in the bottom 15% and make under $15k times two and that's going to be concentrated on the east side. That's $300 in etax
In the northland that big home they probably make $175k together. That's $1750 in etax

Let's say the second home spends 30% of their income on taxable goods, the east side resident 50%
The city makes $1100 and $400 respectfully


So one random home on the east side is worth something like $915 in city taxes per year
That one home in the northland is worth something like $3850 in city taxes


There's the math problem in play.
The average northland home doesn't bring enough in for the city to fairly cover it's expenses but it's going to be higher than many urban homes. You can't put four homes in the space of one home in many low density developments under current standards.

The northland is holding up the city today financially, the etax and sales taxes is the cause. In many homes residents pay more in payroll taxes than property taxes.

The only way to do away with the etax is going to be massive gentrification and shift value into the east side. Today the city needs to bring in high income earners to work and live in KC. Development patterns are a secondary concern.

alejandro46
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: Bluhawk

Post by alejandro46 »

flyingember wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:53 am
alejandro46 wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I would like to see some data regarding the amount of money put in to the Northland vs. how much revenue is generated. With the e-tax, the city is still able to capture a fair amount of revenue but I am near certain it won't cover the expense involved in taking care of that huge amount of land.
The only way to do away with the etax is going to be massive gentrification and shift value into the east side. Today the city needs to bring in high income earners to work and live in KC. Development patterns are a secondary concern.
JoCo doesn't fare much better, as it is all low density sprawl or office parks/warehouses.

I always think back to this article in Strongtowns:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/201 ... ighborhood

It's OK to have neighborhoods that are a little bit rough around the edges and in fact it is good - but we need to invest in transit and mixed income housing from a government level to facilitate density in low income communities.

Is what we DONT need to do is subsidize far flung greenfield development that is a net/net drag on the tax base overall - requiring more subsidies in both waiver of sales tax AND additional built out infrastructure to get to such developments. Infill not landfill.

Post Reply