KCRag Forum

Jerry Agar is a f'ng moron 

Burton wrote: Jerry Agar is a f'ng moron 

how can you even stand to listen to him?  I listened one time for five minutes and will never listen again...

Burton wrote: Jerry Agar is a f'ng moron 

Yep, you're right.

what are you talking about?

Highlander wrote: If the tax pays for, let's say, only 5 miles of light rail, then where do you put it?  Many voters approved the plan thinking it would serve their area.  Will northlanders be happy if the entire system is south of the river? 

I think the voters for light rail voted so because they are sick of the status quo in KCMO. The logistics of the plan are a complete nightmare so anyone who's going to try to hold the plan up to its selling points is an idiot. The vote was more symbolic than anything-- bring KC into the 1990s!

bahua wrote: This reminds me: how big of a tragedy would it be if the money ran out short of building the line in its entirety? Of course it depends on the extent of the construction that is allowed to be completed, but still. I think any line at all would be beneficial.

I was just thinking about this too- if the build the thing in phases, but the silliest ideas last, then build what can be built as the money comes in, then worst case you may end up with a nice starter line.  Does this vote expire at some point if the money doesn;t materialize?

GRID wrote:
how can you even stand to listen to him?  I listened one time for five minutes and will never listen again...

I listened for about 5 minutes tonight of his doom and gloom defeatist attitude about light-rail and had enough and decided to call in. He couldn't understand that this is not about taking cars off the highways between the burbs an DT to reduce rush hour traffic. I tried to talk some sense into him and all he could do was change the subject to the gondolas and bash me for attending a state funded school. He also wanted me to look into some sort of crystal ball and predict the daily ridership on this, wow. I emailed him back with Dallas and Denver's ridership totals which are going UP every year, and some of MARC's projected ridership rates. I probably shouldn't have wasted my time with him, but I've had enough of the cowtown/status-quo attitudes of the defeatists.

He pisses me off even when I agree with him. He's really incendiary and abrasive.

Burton wrote: I listened for about 5 minutes tonight of his doom and gloom defeatist attitude about light-rail and had enough and decided to call in. He couldn't understand that this is not about taking cars off the highways between the burbs an DT to reduce rush hour traffic. I tried to talk some sense into him and all he could do was change the subject to the gondolas and bash me for attending a state funded school. He also wanted me to look into some sort of crystal ball and predict the daily ridership on this, wow. I emailed him back with Dallas and Denver's ridership totals which are going UP every year, and some of MARC's projected ridership rates. I probably shouldn't have wasted my time with him, but I've had enough of the cowtown/status-quo attitudes of the defeatists.

Was that you talking about how we're a "generation behind" places like Denver?????   (I had a good feeling that it had to be a forumer calling in.)  Holy shit I wanted to reach into my car radio and choke that guy to death.  You hit the nail on the head with that comment (if that was in fact you) and with the comment about how people like him are why we are perceived as a "cowtown."  I couldn't believe that jerk's response:  "So you're calling Kansas City a 'cowtown,' why do you people have an inferiority complex?"  Well let's see, Jerry, maybe because pricks like you, who are stuck in a bygone era of urban decay are the reason why we have inhereted this inferiority complex!  Maybe because places like Omaha and Madison are ages ahead of us in the mass transit issue! Then he continues with, "Why is it always 'well this city has this and that city has this, so we should get it!'"  And then he trivializes the whole thing with his jerkoff, condescending comment that, "hey, he has a new pair of shiny pants, I want some, too!"  $&*$!!!

I really almost lost it when that last caller called in and really handed his ass to him.  She had figures that backed up what she was saying and exclaimed that she worked on one of the previous plans.  She mentioned how 40% of the urban core (or maybe it was downtown) is covered in surface parking lots that are filled with cars from people who have to drive to their jobs; she mentioned how a place like Union Station would greatly benefit from light rail by bringing in so many riders, at which time he decided to respond and digress into the Union Station ordeal and exclaim, "Oh yeah, another waste of money!  How many millions did we waste on Union Station?"  And when everyone and their brother knew that he had his ass backed into a corner, he abruptly ended the show. 

I literally was getting a blood rush to the head because I was so furious.  Great call, though, Burton.

Yeah, that was me. I really wish I had the numbers in front of me at the time, as I wrote a 25 page paper on this issue last semester. I was in my car though. I thought it was funny that he hung up on me right after I told him I was an Urban Planning & Design major and am hoping to make this city better than what it is now. Oh well, hopefully this thing gets done and will change all the naysayors minds.

Yeah, that was me. I really wish I had the numbers in front of me at the time, as I wrote a 25 page paper on this issue last semester. I could have layed a smackdown on him if I had all my research at hand, but I was in my car though. I thought it was funny that he hung up on me right after I told him I was an Urban Planning & Design major and am hoping to make this city better than what it is now. Oh well, hopefully this thing gets done and will change all the naysayors minds.

Burton wrote: Yeah, that was me. I really wish I had the numbers in front of me at the time, as I wrote a 25 page paper on this issue last semester. I was in my car though. I thought it was funny that he hung up on me right after I told him I was an Urban Planning & Design major and am hoping to make this city better than what it is now. Oh well, hopefully this thing gets done and will change all the naysayors minds.

I don't know if you heard him tell you after he hung up on you that you obviously aren't going to do anything for the city because you don't know what you're talking about.  It just amazes me that this jerk has a job that consists solely of talking with the citizens of Kansas City and he uses it to completely insult and demoralize those who he doesn't agree with.  It makes me sick. 

I can't remember the last time I listened to an AM station for more than five minutes.  I just don't get any of that full time talk stuff.  Even sports.  Too many morons, too extreme and too much ignorance flying around and I can't think about sports nonstop all day either.

I would turn it off, it's not worth getting all worked up over. 

GRID wrote: I can't remember the last time I listened to an AM station for more than five minutes.  I just don't get any of that full time talk stuff.  Even sports.  Too many morons, too extreme and too much ignorance flying around and I can't think about sports nonstop all day either.

I would turn it off, it's not worth getting all worked up over. 

I can't seem to escape talk radio ... I like to hear issues debated, but all too often it becomes a farce and these talk show hosts simply hang up any time they began to lose their footing.  And the more I become infuriated the harder it is to turn it off.  I guess I'm just a talk radio masochist.

I can't stand it because they are so closed minded and unwilling to budge for anything. That is why I like actual network news. They are face to face with each other, and can't be so closed minded and arrogant (most of the time). I watch Fox all day, unless something good is on. It isn't that I'm a republican or that I'm a conservative, I just prefer Fox, for some reason I just can't stand CNN.
I like Fox also because there are so many viewpoints, even if they are ganged up on.
And for the record, I don't always agree with the people on Fox, I don't follow whatever they say, I listen to the different arguments and think about them.

However there is nothing for KC Development outside of this forum. So I come here to talk about Development, and share my ideas with other people.

Unfortunately there are people who don't know anything about proper development, and only know about the way they've lived their lives for years. Not to mention they don't want change.
However those who like driving to work have to realize that they can certainly continue to do so. This is just providing an option to fight traffic, or to save on gas money and get where your going faster.

tat2kc wrote: Even in the best case, construction won't begin for several years.  First, they have to actually design the thing. Then they have to secure federal and state funding. Then they have to acquire any necessary land. Then fight the lawsuits regarding emminent domain, if needed. If all goes as planned, I wouldn't expect construction to begin before 2010 at the earliest.

Unless the City or some other authority fronts the funds there would probably be no action on any of the plan until the tax funds start coming in - year 2009.  (Yes, the city could start spending $millions now but what programs get cut in order to pay for the work?)  So it is unlikely that any major work will be done on any of these issues.  Since construction cannot start until engineering is completed and plans are drawn construction probably would not start until many years after 2010.

One battle may be won but the war is far from over.  Just think of how long it took for the Watkins Freeway to be built.  A samiliar time frame is very likely for this project.

Question.  How long did it take for other rail projects to start construction from the moment of conception until construction was started?  And then the line became operational?  In KC it is very likely to be one of the longer times.
Right now we are at the moment of conception.

How about more taxes? Not to mention that they can get money from places other than taxes.

ShowMeKC wrote: However this insures it definitely won't be 10 years till we get light rail.

It is very likely will be longer than 10 years.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Question.  How long did it take for other rail projects to start construction from the moment of conception until construction was started?  And then the line became operational?  In KC it is very likely to be one of the longer times.
Right now we are at the moment of conception.

A few...
Dallas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit

Denver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_T ... n_District

MPLS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_Line

It's too bad we can't pick up the pieces from the plan that Cleaver trashed, and move them forward. That plan was already in the engineering phase, and recieving federal funding.  :(

akp, you've been somewhat negative about this issue since it passed, not to mention on several other major issues. You telling me it'll take more than 10 years doesn't effect me very much.

Remember, the city council said they will work on funding, they recognize the problem with the current tax extension, and that citizens want/need light rail now, not a decade or two.

It isn't going to take longer than 10 years to get light rail in the urban core.