KCRag Forum

beautyfromashes wrote:You only call a truce when you don't care to fight or don't have the fortitude to win. 

Or if you don't have the financial resources to win.

mean wrote: Or if you don't have the financial resources to win.

Missouri has more financial resouces than Kansas.  Its just a lack of will to use it to win this war, and that is what makes me the most upset.  What could be more important than keeping existing and attracting new jobs? It's the #1 responsibility for state governments.

.

beautyfromashes wrote: Missouri has more financial resouces than Kansas.  Its just a lack of will to use it to win this war, and that is what makes me the most upset.  What could be more important than keeping existing and attracting new jobs? It's the #1 responsibility for state governments.

The KC area is the only Kansas boarder area where office locations are practical. No one is going to put anything along Kansas's boarders with Colorado, Oklahoma or Nebraska. Those are basically desolate areas that are losing population. (Although Northeast Oklahoma is better than the other two).

Missouri has an edge along the Illinois boarder. On a much smaller scale, the Northwest Arkansas/ Southwest Missouri area is growing.

Missouri's state incentive policies are more complicated because they apply to a lot more viable areas. A state wide program that helps in KC may be an obvious money loser in St. Louis. KU only has to consider KC.

beautyfromashes wrote: Missouri has more financial resouces than Kansas.  Its just a lack of will to use it to win this war, and that is what makes me the most upset.  What could be more important than keeping existing and attracting new jobs? It's the #1 responsibility for state governments.

ok.  So I guess Missouri should offer AMC 65 million to stay in the state?  Are you fucking serious?  Of all places, I thought this forum would be the one place where people would totally get what I have been posting about this, yet even here, there is debate and some level of defense on the part of KS and blame on MO.

This is nothing short of KS declaring war on KCMO, and that's on top of all the other things the KS side does to NOT cooperate with the rest of the metro area.

The state line is and will always be the single thing that will keep KC down.  When my kids are my age and Omaha, OKC, Indy and Nashville are larger, more vibrant cities than KC, just like Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta etc have blown by KC in past decades, you will once again be able to point to the state line as a primary reason KC just can't quite get over the hump.

God, KC could be a top 10 or even 5 city in this country if the entire metro ever even remotely got on the same page.  It really could and that's what bugs me most about the place.

The point was the ridiculousness of calling a 'truce' with Kansas.  Why would they adhere to the truce? And if we simply give up and don't give any incentives, it makes it that much more easy to pull corporations across the state line.  Missouri decides not to play and Kansas can still get the business to move, just with less incentives paid out.  We have to quit with the oneKC bs.  Kansas is our competition and you either beat your competition or you make it cost a lot of money to pull the customer for your competitor.  The only way a truce would work, is if Kansas sees that Missouri is going to wake up and start raiding their businesses back or the runup incentives needed to pull a business is cost adverse.  You have to negotiate from a place of strength and calling a 'truce' is not the answer.

GRID wrote: ok.  So I guess Missouri should offer AMC 65 million to stay in the state?  Are you fucking serious?  Of all places, I thought this forum would be the one place where people would totally get what I have been posting about this, yet even here, there is debate and some level of defense on the part of KS and blame on MO.

This is nothing short of KS declaring war on KCMO, and that's on top of all the other things the KS side does to NOT cooperate with the rest of the metro area.

The state line is and will always be the single thing that will keep KC down.  When my kids are my age and Omaha, OKC, Indy and Nashville are larger, more vibrant cities than KC, just like Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta etc have blown by KC in past decades, you will once again be able to point to the state line as a primary reason KC just can't quite get over the hump.

God, KC could be a top 10 or even 5 city in this country if the entire metro ever even remotely got on the same page.  It really could and that's what bugs me most about the place.

So what should we do?

And I think your mistaken on a top 10 city in this country.  The only reason why I think this city was so vibrant in the 20's and looked so beautiful with fountains and such is because we went against Prohibition, just think if we followed every other city, this place would probably be built up like Omaha or Oklahoma City.

KCMax wrote: So what should we do?

I don't know the answer man.  Honestly, I doubt there is one.  I have never seen a city with so many metro area residents so consistently pessimistic and aggressively anti urban core.  It's a lot to overcome.  I mean, this all started back in the 70's and 80's when KC first began to really spill over into Johnson County.  Up to that point, KC was a powerhouse.  From that point on, it's been a struggle for KC to maintain status quo, let alone get ahead.

The economic war across state line (which is 99% preemptive KS aggression) should cause a MAJOR uproar by the likes of the Greater KC Chamber of Commerce, the Area Development Council, Mid America Regional Council etc.  But they are all quiet.

It just goes to show how much KS influence there is even in "regional" planning and economic development organizations.  The one thing I agreed with Funkhouser on was that KCMO needs it's own Chamber of Commerce.

But it will take leadership on both sides of the state line with regional pride and understanding of the importance of the urban core to make anything happen.

I sadly don't see that happening anytime in the near future.  At least from the KS side.

Begging Jeff City is not the answer either.  To Jeff City, the KC area equals fail because the metro just can't get along and continues to self destruct.  So why should the entire state go down with them?

Jeff City  is never going to even attempt to match what KS is offering in incentives.  That would open a can of worms for the state and do more long term damage to the state than they are willing to risk.  Especially in the state's largest metro area of St Louis where this problem simply doesn't exist because nearly all of the economic competition in the area is within MO and and even most of that is within StL county with some between the city and outer counties like St Charles.  But still same state.  (I know there is plenty of eco competition within metro StL, but it's not the same as KC, so don't go there).

The first time MO offers a company 50 million when they threaten to move 400 employees to IL, or even within MO, it's all over.  It will snowball.  So KC is collateral damage.

I don't think anybody in KC is understanding just how much money Kansas is throwing around here.  It's very difficult to find even remotely close incentives offered for cross country moves and I tried to show that with the comparison to DC, but my post was written off as "well that's DC".  Trust me, this is not going on hardly anywhere (at the level in KC), DC was just my example and the numbers are so different, that alone should prove how absurd Kansas is being.

I think the issue with KC comes down to Good Leadership, Better Schools and Reducing Crime.  If you don't have that working in a city, then it will fail.  Look at what Giuliani did in New York, in the 80's New York was a hell hole that was hemorrhaging people, you couldn't even ride the Subways at night, Times Square was a dump with strip clubs, hookers and drug activity, look at what its become now, it turned around because it had a good leader, crime went down and schools got better.  I think those are the 3 core things in making a city succeed, it's not about what companies move here or there. 

I really don't see it as a state line issue.  Look at Detroit, everything is out in the suburbs and I'm sure lots of companies moved from Detroit to the Burbs, there are built up areas like Pontiac that are a good 45 minutes from Detroit.  What makes Pontiac any different from Olathe or Overland Park?

.

pash wrote: No, it's not.

What could be a higher directive for state governments then encouraging the creation of good jobs for their citizens?

A) Is Detroit a good example of success?  B) The suburbs are still in the same state. Problem in kc is each state government is only impacted by half of our population responsibility wise.

pash wrote: Read my post on the previous page.  Businesses choose to set up shop in downtowns/CBDs in cities all over the world for straightforward business reasons, no incentives necessary.  Kansas City's downtown fails to attract businesses because it fails to offer the benefits that other cities' CBDs provide.

Get to work.

True, but it's the companies that are the primary reason other downtowns are more desirable.  They want to be there in the first place.  Where in KC, most would rather opt for a suburban office park.  People in KC use every excuse in the book to move to the burbs.  Look at the etax.  It's a non issue, but it's an excuse.  The etax could go away tomorrow and it wouldn't make an ounce of difference. Do you think Denver's Downtown was always vibrant?  Denver tried many times.  It takes a mass interest by the private sector to really make a difference.

That is what is lacking in KC.  The "desire" to be a part of the urban core's success and future.

Charlotte, Indy, OKC, etc all have a large amount of corporate presence.  KC has invested just as much, if not more, than most other cities, but the difference in KC is that the private sector has not responded.  So the city needs to "get to work".  I agree.  The city needs to continue what it's been doing.  But the corporate community continues to flee to Kansas and continues to see the plaza as KC's only real alternative.

As far as schools and crime.  All large cities have urban core schools and crime issues.  It has little impact on these issues so long as the actual downtown is not crime ridden (which KC's is not) and KC has some of the closest suburbs with good schools as any metro out there.  The northland schools are only 5-10 minutes away.  Even in the most vibrant cities, most people live in the burbs.  Fact of life and urban KCMO is plenty attractive for people without kids.

Again, where is KC's corporate community?  It's just not there for some reason.

Why has it been so long since a local company has erected a downtown tower?  OK, H&R Block. But only after they were begged and begged and received a massive amount of incentives.  They don't even pay the etax.  Well, the employees do, but then the city gives it back to pay for the building.

How is OKC erecting a 50 story building downtown without incentives?  The company wants to be there and wants to make a difference. 

Think of KC in a "relationship" analogy.  Why would you bribe your gal with jewelry to keep her from leaving for another guy?  We all know how that story ends.  KC needs to make itself so attractive that she doesn't bother looking at others.  Infrastructure, business-friendly environs, education, culture.  Quit trying to compete on a suburban playing field.

.

GRID wrote: As far as schools and crime.  All large cities have urban core schools and crime issues.  It has little impact on these issues so long as the actual downtown is not crime ridden (which KC's is not) and KC has some of the closest suburbs with good schools as any metro out there.  The northland schools are only 5-10 minutes away.  Even in the most vibrant cities, most people live in the burbs.  Fact of life and urban KCMO is plenty attractive for people without kids.

This is where I strongly disagree.  The percentage of people without kids or who aren't planning on having kids within 5 years or so is very small.  I would have loved to have lived in Brookside, but I didn't want to have to sell in 5 or so years just to get better schools.  All of the suburban neighborhoods close to downtown (with the exception of the northland) in KCMO have VERY poor public schools.  Look at SouthWest High right now, horrible learning conditions for any student.  Yes, schools are a problem within most urban environments but not all urban cities are as sprawled out as KCMO and don't have one huge school system that sucks.  KC has some very concerning problems with it's schools and everyone knows it.  It's hard to attract a company to your core when they know they have to live at least 10-15 minutes away (worse in rush hour) in order to send their kids to decent public schools.  KCMO has done a lot recently to improve downtown and midtown's infrastructure, but they aren't focusing on social issues which can make any organization look elsewhere.  I've worked for two organizations that have pondered moving or expanding and the main results of the surveys they sent out to employees were about wanting to work closer to home, having better access to good schools close to work (so that when you kid is sick you don't have to drive or take a bus 30+ minutes away) and wanting to work in a fun environment (I'll agree that the burbs are entertaining). IMHO KCMO needs to direct a majority of their attention on social issues and if they do there will be a need for more public transportation and infrastructure and the companies will begin to come.

like GRID said, every urban school district in america is abysmal (on the whole - every district likewise has some good individual schools), and every urban core in the country has issues with crime.  KC is not remotely unique in this regard. 

look at chicago - awful public schools, and terrible crime.  however, the city is and has been "the place to be" for decades and culturally it is #1 in the region.  in the KC area, and maybe some other midwestern metro areas, the city is not #1 in the minds/hearts of the citizens and business community.  here, that wedge is underscored by the state line. 

don't get me wrong, KC needs to try to fix its schools and crime issues, but that isn't what keeps companies and people out of the city. 

^ exactly pash.  Plus, how many of those 400 presently live in KCMO and would still pay the etax if AMC moved?

KC area companies need to step up.  That's the bottom line.  Downtown KC IS an attractive place to do business.  I think working in downtown KC is very comparable to just about any major city (now), if not better.

But companies need to want that type of environment and employees have to ask for it.  I don't think that's the case in KC as much as it is in other markets.

On top of that, it would be extremely difficult for AMC to turn down 47 million dollars.  That is a lot of money.  AMC had zero interest in KS, but 47 million to move 400 people is huge and would almost be stupid to pass up for even the most passionate urban core supporters.

If somebody were going to give me a 700k home in Hallbrook, I would take it, even though suburban KS is the last place I would choose to live on my own.

To compare.  Cincinnati is providing 67 million in tif money to build a new 42 story tower in downtown for the 2000 employes of Great American Insurance.  Or about half of what KCMO put into the much smaller Block tower.  And if Great American ever leaves, the city still has redeveloped a huge part of downtown.

But here is the difference.

1. Great American Insurance wants to be there and they are the ones that have pushed to make it happen, rather than simply threatening to leave and playing the states and cities against each other.

2. Kentucky is not dangling 60-100 million in incentives to lure them over there.  (actually, there is a regional agreement to not aggressively compete there).

Huge difference.

chrizow wrote: don't get me wrong, KC needs to try to fix its schools and crime issues, but that isn't what keeps companies and people out of the city. 

Actually these are the main reason, especially the schools.  If you have kids or are planning on having kids, and you already live in the suburbs (KS or MO), are you going to move to KCMO?  95% will not.  Schools are what parents care about...not whether or not they can stroll down to the P&L for a drink or walk to First Fridays whenever they want.  And you can't sustain KCMO with 21-30 year old singles.  KCMO has to be attractive to white families for it to be competitive with the incentives KS is offering.  KCMO also needs an extensive light rail system.