Amenities missing from downtown

[smh]

Can we split this thread off? Clearly the topic has become "How can we tame the Missouri?".

[IraGlacialis]

And while restored wetlands along a stretch of the Missouri may not be a complete draw for people, besides fishermen, bird watchers, and duck hunters, the sheer benefit they bring in general is very obvious.

how do you do this without encroaching on farmland? the farm lobby will kill this plan in the first 15 seconds. remember that bottom land is where a huge percentage of farming happens in this country.

you can not lessen the flow in the same width.

That, I agree, would probably be the most difficult thing to do. The fact is that you will have to encroach on farmland. If I was really callous, I'd say to swoop in to buy the land right after a flood, as it is seen that flooding makes the land temporarily unusable due to deposition (note the cost involved with the nastiness last year, as well as the general cost of keeping the floodwaters at bay).
I am not advocating turning the entire stretch of the Missouri into wetland (though that would be nice); rather simply that stretch from Weston to Fairfax.
MDC already gives subsidies to people willing to convert part of their land to natural habitat. It stands reason that a stronger compensation be given to farmers on that land. Hell, you can probably even have an agreement where the farmer still owns the land and is subsidized at a little higher amount than what he would earn as a farmer on a good year; the agreement being that once he, or his family, is done with the land, it passes into MDC ownership.

If developers are allowed to destroy hundreds of acres of farmland in the name of suburban sprawl, why can't we set some aside for something actually useful? The fact remains that wetlands not only effectively widen a river, but also slow it down more on top of that and filter the water. And such an element is really the only thing that would make DT riverfront development that is river-centric actually desirable.

On the related subject of riverfront development, it would be nice if there was not only a boardwalk developed on the river, but one that focuses the flow under it into a turbine to power the structure.

[flyingember]

And while restored wetlands along a stretch of the Missouri may not be a complete draw for people, besides fishermen, bird watchers, and duck hunters, the sheer benefit they bring in general is very obvious.

how do you do this without encroaching on farmland? the farm lobby will kill this plan in the first 15 seconds. remember that bottom land is where a huge percentage of farming happens in this country.

you can not lessen the flow in the same width.

That, I agree, would probably be the most difficult thing to do. The fact is that you will have to encroach on farmland. If I was really callous, I'd say to swoop in to buy the land right after a flood, as it is seen that flooding makes the land temporarily unusable due to deposition (note the cost involved with the nastiness last year, as well as the general cost of keeping the floodwaters at bay).
I am not advocating turning the entire stretch of the Missouri into wetland (though that would be nice); rather simply that stretch from Weston to Fairfax.
MDC already gives subsidies to people willing to convert part of their land to natural habitat. It stands reason that a stronger compensation be given to farmers on that land. Hell, you can probably even have an agreement where the farmer still owns the land and is subsidized at a little higher amount than what he would earn as a farmer on a good year; the agreement being that once he, or his family, is done with the land, it passes into MDC ownership.

If developers are allowed to destroy hundreds of acres of farmland in the name of suburban sprawl, why can't we set some aside for something actually useful? The fact remains that wetlands not only effectively widen a river, but also slow it down more on top of that and filter the water. And such an element is really the only thing that would make DT riverfront development that is river-centric actually desirable.

On the related subject of riverfront development, it would be nice if there was not only a boardwalk developed on the river, but one that focuses the flow under it into a turbine to power the structure.

You can't do Weston to Fairfax even buying out farmers

There's the entire business development at Riverside. And the town of Farley and Waldron.
And a major coal train route
and an airport and a powerplant

It's not as simple as picking a section of river and buying land, you have to move infrastructure too. We've been building in the bottoms for far too long for any idea to be quick and simple.

[shinatoo]

Not sure if this is the best place for this but I got this e-mail today. Kansas' be proud! your governor is setting an example.

You have no idea how proud I am of you, of us, and of our movement.

More than 10,000 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) supporters—joined by countless advocates from partner organizations around the country—contacted our governors, encouraging them to not opt out of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP).

The results were astounding. Of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, only Kansas and Florida opted out of the RTP!

We have negotiated with top officials in Florida to minimize the impact of this decision by securing commitments to fully fund the dollars on recreational trails from other programs. And don’t think for a moment that we won’t keep fighting in Kansas.

We know firsthand that in many states your voices tilted the scales in our favor. And, as the first test under the new federal transportation bill MAP-21, we’ve shown that trails, walking and bicycling have an essential place in America’s transportation future—and we won’t stand for anything less.

Please see this letter from RTC President Keith Laughlin congratulating the trails movement on this recent victory.

With gratitude,

Marianne Wesley Fowler
Sr. Vice President of Federal Relations
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy



P.S. I thought you'd like to hear another bit of good news: Our emergency fundraising effort that our president, Keith Laughlin, authorized in late August to help us continue defending crucial trail programs like RTP was successful. We raised more than $100,000! Thank you so much to everyone who helped us reach that bar.

[IraGlacialis]

You can't do Weston to Fairfax even buying out farmers

There's the entire business development at Riverside. And the town of Farley and Waldron.
And a major coal train route
and an airport and a powerplant

It's not as simple as picking a section of river and buying land, you have to move infrastructure too. We've been building in the bottoms for far too long for any idea to be quick and simple.

The rail line won't go anywhere. Neither will the power plant, the airport, speedway, etc; conversion can occur while still keeping certain places intact. If anything, a wetland surrounding the power plant would be most beneficial to help with run-off.
As for towns, Farley is tucked behind the hills, Waldron behind said rail line, and Parkville already has a waterway bordering it. Even the good chunk of Riverside's floodplain can be converted without removing the industrial development, 639, or Argosy. Not to mention that wetland conversion would do a lot toward protecting them against another summer flood.

Fairfax itself would not be converted, even though canal-ification would ideally occur. The area along the river side of the Fairfax's levee is a prime candidate though; same goes for the "Holland Park" stretch along NKC.

Even though the actual DT stretch would remain the same width, by the time the river reaches there, the flow would have slowed enough and cleared of floatsam to make an appreciable impact to the riverfront (and isn't getting people to willingly go to the DT Riverfront what we desire). Hell, even only Missouri messing around with its side can be enough to have some impact on the river.

And of course it wouldn't be quick and simple. Even if the land was given freely to convert, it wouldn't be quick, simple, or cheap. Doesn't make it a less worthy endeavor.

[knucklehead]

Exactly, you can't make the inability to implement a perfect solution an excuse to do nothing at all.

Once you get a recreation industry established, then you have economic interests that have the power to get more done. Incrementalism rules!

The barge indury's strategy is to prevent anything at all from being done. That way they prevent the build up of a group of small business people whose profits depend on the recreation industry and who are willing to form an association that will lobby. That is how a relatively small narrow interest dominates politically. They hold their stronghold with absolute (and disproportionate) opposition to all proposals for as long as possible.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Once you get a recreation industry established, then you have economic interests that have the power to get more done

Guess many don't follow the many discussions/disputes that occur between the upstream states and those downstream. The upstream states want to retain water behind the dams for their recreational purposes. This is a battle that has been going on for decades and will likely continue.

[longviewmo]

Once you get a recreation industry established, then you have economic interests that have the power to get more done

Guess many don't follow the many discussions/disputes that occur between the upstream states and those downstream. The upstream states want to retain water behind the dams for their recreational purposes. This is a battle that has been going on for decades and will likely continue.

Exactly. A lot of that flooding last year was probably caused by them holding back the normal amount for recreation way up north... and then realizing too late that they held too much.

[loftguy]

Can we split this thread off? Clearly the topic has become "How can we tame the Missouri?".

Moderators: SMH asked nicely. Can we break this discussion off?

[chingon]

I was by the Argosy last night and was amazed at how many people were using the levee trail to bike/jog. It is a short trail, has bad access, no one lives anywhere near it, is about as lo-fi and cheaply constructed as a trail can get, yet plenty of people were using it.

The fact that our levees are closed to the public is fucking outrageous. The fact that there not a gravel bike/ped trail on the levee through KC is an embarrassing failure.

[taxi]

I was by the Argosy last night and was amazed at how many people were using the levee trail to bike/jog. It is a short trail, has bad access, no one lives anywhere near it, is about as lo-fi and cheaply constructed as a trail can get, yet plenty of people were using it.

The fact that our levees are closed to the public is fucking outrageous. The fact that there not a gravel bike/ped trail on the levee through KC is an embarrassing failure.

Did you get lucky?
It is my understanding that there is some control over the levees by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I imagine that, today especially, our levees are in great danger of being targeted by you-know-who.

[longviewmo]

Levee trails are awesome. This seems like something that would cheap and easy to expand. Heck, I'd argue that letting people on it would make it a lot "safer" because you'd have plenty of eyes that could notice any problems.

[chaglang]

Levee trails are awesome. This seems like something that would cheap and easy to expand. Heck, I'd argue that letting people on it would make it a lot "safer" because you'd have plenty of eyes that could notice any problems.

The best legs of the Brew-to-Brew are on levees.

[chingon]

Did you get lucky?
It is my understanding that there is some control over the levees by the Dept. of Homeland Security.
I imagine that, today especially, our levees are in great danger of being targeted by you-know-who.

I don't gamble. I had a meeting there. And I didn't get lucky.

Re: DHS control, I don't know how much finagling it takes but the levee is open in Riverside, and Lawrence has levee trail, and StL and a host of other places so it can't be that hard. I'm sure there is more trumped up "security risk" red tape to cut through on the northside levees around the airport, but technically the land on the river side of Holland Drive is a park (with no access).

The river is public, and use of it for fishing, navigating and commerce are legally protected to the ordinary high water mark. Any enitrely hypothetical levee terrorism could easily be accomplished with a john boat and outboard. Also I'm not sure "no trespassing" signs are as great a deterrent to the average Al Caeda/Militiaman operative as the are to recreational joggers.

I think a connecting the Riverfront Heritage Trail to the River Front Park via a levee trail is pretty doable. And I think connecting the River Front Heritage trail to Parkville via the HOA bridge and the north side levee would be awesome.

[bobbyhawks]

I've always wanted to see a net-enclosed golf driving range that overlooks the river. It would also be great if this was connected to a racket club/swimming locale and served whisky.

[flyingember]

pocket parks would do a lot for the look.

instead of a cement sidewalk everywhere, if it's wide enough replace cement with a piece of grass.

on Grand take out half the sidewalk and put in trees and benches.

more traffic calming devices. there's plenty of places where we need to stop cars from ever driving in the parking lane. there's plans to do this for the streetcar to keep cars from cutting around on the right side.

[FangKC]

Pet daycare and grooming center that hopefully would have a pet playground and veterinary services onsite.

[ColumbusParkian]

Fang, I believe a pet daycare is in the process of opening at 5th and Grand.

[KCPowercat]

Bottle shop like beer station in waldo

[earthling]

With a nice library is there a desire for a bookstore/coffeeshop downtown? A Rainy Day or Prospero's bookstore would be nice in River Market and/or Xroads along streetcar line.