New Convention Hotel talk

[kcjak]

What seems so obviously necessary, to Highlander, KC-Wildcat, LenexatoKCMO, Trailerkid, Grid, myself and many others is perceived by several as the formula for failure.  This anti-growth stance is further preached from several self-motivated pulpits and believed by the simple, relatively uninformed people of our community. It's a big deal, because this form of complacency will kill the city.

I agree.  And it's not like I believe we can only have growth OR sustain/improve the general city services.  Of course we need to maintain good roads, rebuild the sewers, manage waste, etc.  But not at the expense of investing in the future in terms of larger-scale development that may be (gasp) funded in some part by taxpayers.

The lost Skills USA not just because of the hotel room situation but also due to lack of space at the center.  Ditto for Walmart.  And the same could be said for most conventions or gatherings that would like to have a 1,000 room hotel.

Can the city compete with the big boys in luring these big conventions?  Without draining the budget?  Or is the city better off lowering its sights and compete for those conventions that it can currently accommodate, those that are small and medium sized?

Why can't KC address the convention center at a later date?  A 1,000 room hotel won't happen overnight, nor will an expansion of the convention center, but who's to say the two won't be tied together?  And I seriously doubt the city would completely forget about small/medium conventions to lure in the big ones.

[KC-wildcat]

...the consequences of giving up.   

This statement is the frightening reality of our current mayor.  Whether we want to or not, Kansas Citians will be well apprised of these consequences in 4 years.  Economic Circumstances notwithstanding, there is no excuse for giving up.  Never, ever, under any circumstances.  Sadly, our mayor and his wife have given up.  For some, giving up is fine because giving up = fiscal responsibility.  You guys know who you are.  For others, like myself, giving up = unacceptable.  

[lock+load]

Whether it's a business, a city, or a country, if you take the position that it's only safe to do nothing, you will end up with nothing.  The cities that are becoming more livable, valued and revenue producing are those that embrace change, opportunity and reasonable risk.  It's called a make it happen attitude.

Did you read mean's post above?  Sometimes just "making it happen" has terrible consequences down the road. 

Looking back, would we have been better served "settling for the status quo" of the streetcar system, neighborhoods untainted by swaths of highway, continued development of the urban core rather than suburban sprawl, and the "archaic" pre-WWII urban zoning laws?

History demonstrates that blindly forging ahead with so-called progress can have the opposite effect. We're currently stuck with undoing the "progress" handed to us by previous generations, and now we're at risk of setting up an unsustainable economic situation for those who come after us.

[DaveKCMO]

This statement is the frightening reality of our current mayor.  Whether we want to or not, Kansas Citians will be well apprised of these consequences in 4 years.  Economic Circumstances notwithstanding, there is no excuse for giving up.  Never, ever, under any circumstances.  Sadly, our mayor and his wife have given up.  For some, giving up is fine because giving up = fiscal responsibility.  You guys know who you are.  For others, like myself, giving up = unacceptable. 

yes, i do know who i am. my priorities are being addressed more than adequately.

[MidtownCat]

Did you read mean's post above?  Sometimes just "making it happen" has terrible consequences down the road. 

The problem with mean’s post is that it’s a complete misnomer on some pretty basic levels.

We’re talking about global issues that affected all American cities at that time.  World War II, the rise of the automobile, Dwight D. Eisenhower endorsement of a national interstate highway system in the 50’s that affected virtually every major American city in this country.  These weren’t “Keeping up with the Jones’s” or “fads”.    

The problem is not that we didn’t fight ideology that was considered “progressive” in that period of time.  It is that we were slower to evolve as others around us transformed and adapted to these radical, global changes that occurred socially and economically pre and post World War II.  

He mentions our abandonment of trolley lines.  And why did this happen?  Primarily because of World War II and the fact that we dismantled large sections of our rail lines and salvaged the steel for the massive manufacturing effort in Kansas City.

Of course, we have made mistakes over the years.  And will continue to do so moving forward.  But, I would rather we have a grand vision, have the will to grasp it only to fail, than to never have tried at all.  Building stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs away from downtown was one of, if not the greatest planning mistakes in our history.  But, would this city be better off having not built the Truman Sports Complex at all and not provided homes for two major league franchises?

Union Station?  The World War I monument?  Should we have let these jewels rot in decay?

The will and the desire to be forward thinking and to collectively work toward lofty, visionary goals, that is not danger.  Danger is doing just enough to get by or nothing at all.  

[aknowledgeableperson]

I agree.  And it's not like I believe we can only have growth OR sustain/improve the general city services.  Of course we need to maintain good roads, rebuild the sewers, manage waste, etc.  But not at the expense of investing in the future in terms of larger-scale development that may be (gasp) funded in some part by taxpayers.

You seem to think that money just grows on trees.  Or like a kid shopping with his mother and she tells him they don't have the money to buy the new toy and he says "Just charge it."  The city and its citizens do have limited resources and it is up to the city leaders to make sure those resources are used wisely.  Now if you are comfortable having a sales tax rate of 12%, doubling the property tax, and increasing the E-tax to 1.5% plus increasing a few other fees our city leaders should be able to provide everything on everybody's wish list.

There is one thought in business that a company cannot be everything for everybody so it has to determine what it does or can do best and do that.

In another subject KCMO ranks 39th in the nation for size of population and in the next 10 to 20 years, if current trends hold, it is very likely that it will not climb but may stay at #39 or fall a place or two.  That size of population itself limits the city to what is can do and provide its citizens.  By population we compete with the likes of Fresno, Long Beach, Sacramento, Mesa City, Cleveland, Virginia Beach, Omaha, Miami, and Oakland.

Now notice, I didn't say to do nothing.  What I did say is that we are limited in what we can do.  City leaders and citizens will say what we can do and what we will not do.  Some of those decisions will be popular with me, others not just like with you.

[knucklehead]

When exactly did the American can do attitude die. AKP you are the epitimy of the "can't do" attitude.

I have to laugh when the in the political rhelm the biggest flag wavers around (who claim they are big fans of America) claim this country can't afford social security.

You remind me of those people. 

Which is it. Are we a great country or are we a county of paupers. Make up your mind.

[trailerkid]

Simply amazing.  Man, you need to move to Topeka.  "lowering our sights" is what got Kansas City into this mess in the first place.  Replace Kemper?  Nah, it'll do.  Build Light Rail?  Nah, busses are fine.  And on and on and on.  Keep lowering the standards, and before long, bam, we're Springfield.   

I believe AKP worked in/with our ailing local convention industry in the past. That fact will illuminate a lot of his opinions. 

[KCPowercat]

I believe AKP worked in/with our ailing local convention industry in the past. That fact will illuminate a lot of his opinions.  

or maybe part of the reason we are in the position we are in now?

[trailerkid]

or maybe part of the reason we are in the position we are in now?

Had to keep myself from going there, but it's easy enough to connect the dots... 

It's really quite sad when you figure Flunkhouser would've fit right in at one of AKP's committee meetings back in the 70s. AKP would probably be considered on the side of "evil" developers according to Funk.

(Cue Huey Lewis "Back in Time")

Easy to tell why Grid left. Only beer and restaurants to talk about on this forum now.

[Highlander]

Had to keep myself from going there, but it's easy enough to connect the dots... 

It's really quite sad when you figure Flunkhouser would've fit right in at one of AKP's committee meetings back in the 70s. AKP would probably be considered on the side of "evil" developers according to Funk.

(Cue Huey Lewis "Back in Time")

Easy to tell why Grid left. Only beer and restaurants to talk about on this forum now.

AKP is only in his mid 50's from all the info he has provided on this forum.  I would think he worked in the convention industry much more recently than the 70's. 

[kcjak]

You seem to think that money just grows on trees.  Or like a kid shopping with his mother and she tells him they don't have the money to buy the new toy and he says "Just charge it."  The city and its citizens do have limited resources and it is up to the city leaders to make sure those resources are used wisely.  Now if you are comfortable having a sales tax rate of 12%, doubling the property tax, and increasing the E-tax to 1.5% plus increasing a few other fees our city leaders should be able to provide everything on everybody's wish list.

There is one thought in business that a company cannot be everything for everybody so it has to determine what it does or can do best and do that.

In another subject KCMO ranks 39th in the nation for size of population and in the next 10 to 20 years, if current trends hold, it is very likely that it will not climb but may stay at #39 or fall a place or two.  That size of population itself limits the city to what is can do and provide its citizens.  By population we compete with the likes of Fresno, Long Beach, Sacramento, Mesa City, Cleveland, Virginia Beach, Omaha, Miami, and Oakland.

Now notice, I didn't say to do nothing.  What I did say is that we are limited in what we can do.  City leaders and citizens will say what we can do and what we will not do.  Some of those decisions will be popular with me, others not just like with you.

AKP, I also agree that, like a company, a city cannot but all things to all people.  But it needs to try because the people are (and should be) the ones responsible for it's growth and it's decline.  By investing in projects like the convention hotel now, we make KC a player for conventions in the future.  A convention hotel brings people to the city, if only for a few days, but it also brings jobs, both direct and indirect.

I believe the hotel is needed and don't mind spending extra tax money on it.  If I don't like the extra sales tax, I'll make purchases in Johnson county our outside of KC.  There is no way that a hotel would be paid for by increased property taxes or earnings tax.  But I believe this type of investment, like the P&L, helps rejeuvenate the city (if only downtown) and that will help bring residents.  Those residents pay sales taxes, earning taxes and property taxes that help pay for infrastructure and future projects. In the KC BizJournal today there is an article about a company choosing to relocate from one downtown building into the Transamerica building - jobs that very well could have moved outside of the KC city limits and we could have lost the related earnings tax, sales taxes from spending on lunch in the P&L, etc.  However, someone in the article mentioned something like it being stupid to move away from downtown now that it undergoing a renaissance.  More businesses downtown mean more business travellers and more hotel nights to fill up current and new hotels.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansa ... 00^1666324

My opinion differs from yours - I believe we need to spend money to make money because KC became complacent with what it has for far too long.  We CAN compete in population with the cities you mention - many of those cities are making investments and will benefit or are benefitting from it.  There will always be Sun Belt cities that have explosive populations, and those cities will always be moving ahead of KC.  But there's no reason we can't add as many people as Omaha, OKC, Nashville, etc. if we give people reasons to move here and reasons to stay: jobs, quality of life, vibrant downtown and neighborhoods, culture, transportation, etc.

[phxcat]

If city population is a limiting factor, well first of all, the population is larger than Minneapolis and St. Louis, which don't seem to have similar problems with development, and is not far below Denver, which doesn't have problems with development.  If it is a limiting factor, then instead of city leaders just throwing up their hands and saying "nope, we can't do it!  Other cities are growing faster than we are", they need to ask, what can we do to grow our population, and what investments can we make in our city that will grow population and income?

[aknowledgeableperson]

City population is just one of the limiting factors.  Another would be corporate support or lack thereof.  Minn and StL have large corporate presence in their cities.  KC on the other hand.  Hallmark is large and look what it has done with Crown Center but what else does KC have?

You ask what can we do to grow our population.  And that is where there is a big difference of ideas.  Grow downtown.  Basic city services.  Invest in the neighborhoods.  Go after the big conventions.  And many others.  Just because one doesn't support everthing for downtown doesn't mean one is against growth, just means one has a different approach to solve the problem.  Much like a sports team.  Improve through the draft or go the free agent route.

[KC-wildcat]

You ask what can we do to grow our population.  And that is where there is a big difference of ideas.  Grow downtown.  Basic city services.  Invest in the neighborhoods.  Go after the big conventions.  And many others.  Just because one doesn't support everthing for downtown doesn't mean one is against growth, just means one has a different approach to solve the problem.  Much like a sports team.  Improve through the draft or go the free agent route.

You can use silly analogies about pro sports and kids in candy stores until your blue in the face.  The fact is that you don't prioritize downtown development.  Plain and simple.  In your eyes, a "great" downtown does not necessarily require development, energy, vibrant social life, shopping, conventions, etc.  A great downtown can be merely a nice, quite, well-paved municipality with a balanced budget.  Seeing as this is a website dedicated primarily to Kansas City "Downtown" Development, I happen to find your regressive views quite maddening. 

Now, please correct me if I've mischaracterized your stance on downtown development.  I mean, if you'd like to see growth and development DT, what is your plan for making that happen?  What are some of your ideas?  Obviously, you do not favor tax breaks or subsidies for developers.  You don't care about conventions.  You don't care about tourism.  Ok, well, how does a city like Kansas City keep up with Denver, Louisville, Indy, etc.?  If you don't think we need to keep up with those cites, or that your content falling behind those cities, don't even bother responding to this post.  I'm only concerned with ideas on how to help Kansas City stay competitive.  Ideas like convention hotels and increased convention space.  Ideas like P&L, PAC, SC, etc. 

[mean]

Put clawbacks in our agreements, but this attitude spearheaded by Flunk and his dunderhead followers is only digging a giant hole for this city which will make future leaders work twice as hard.

Clawbacks would be a major step in the right direction.

The problem with mean’s post is that it’s a complete misnomer on some pretty basic levels.

We’re talking about global issues that affected all American cities at that time.  World War II, the rise of the automobile, Dwight D. Eisenhower endorsement of a national interstate highway system in the 50’s that affected virtually every major American city in this country.  These weren’t “Keeping up with the Jones’s” or “fads”.

Sure it was. Kansas City has more highway miles per capita than any other city in the country for a reason. Highway planners mistakenly thought that more highways meant easier access to the city, and particularly downtown (alphabet loop anyone?) which logically would lead more to people coming downtown. It was a fine idea in theory, but it didn't work that way in the long run, which is the same way I feel about some--not all--of the various downtown (re)development ideas that have been floated around for the past decade.

The problem is not that we didn’t fight ideology that was considered “progressive” in that period of time.  It is that we were slower to evolve as others around us transformed and adapted to these radical, global changes that occurred socially and economically pre and post World War II.

Paint it however you like, the fact remains that up until post-WW2, cities had followed the same basic design patterns since the dawn of civilization. The prevailing attitude in America at the time was that a New World of unlimited consumption was upon us, and this fueled the rise of auto-centric suburbia, the American Dream, also known as progress. Kansas City by and large bought into that dream, and essentially screwed itself for a half century.

Certainly this is a simplification, and I realize that no matter what we had done, the core would have largely emptied out and become the KC we all know and hate from the 1990s. Nothing could have stopped that. But the point is that many of the mistakes we made in the name of progress at the time have created obstacles that must be overcome now that we're in a position where people are actually interested in the city, and I don't want to see the city make short-sighted but well-intentioned decisions that will, in 10-20 years, be nothing but more obstacles.

He mentions our abandonment of trolley lines.  And why did this happen?  Primarily because of World War II and the fact that we dismantled large sections of our rail lines and salvaged the steel for the massive manufacturing effort in Kansas City.

I think "primarily" is a bit misleading. Kansas City abandoned much of its streetcar system in the name of The Mighty Bus, Transportation of the Future.

Of course, we have made mistakes over the years.  And will continue to do so moving forward.  But, I would rather we have a grand vision, have the will to grasp it only to fail, than to never have tried at all.  Building stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs away from downtown was one of, if not the greatest planning mistakes in our history.  But, would this city be better off having not built the Truman Sports Complex at all and not provided homes for two major league franchises?

Do you see the false dichotomy?

Union Station?  The World War I monument?  Should we have let these jewels rot in decay?

Again, do you see the false dichotomy?

The will and the desire to be forward thinking and to collectively work toward lofty, visionary goals, that is not danger.  Danger is doing just enough to get by or nothing at all.  

I don't entirely disagree. I appreciate lofty, visionary goals. And I don't think doing "just enough to get by or nothing at all" is a viable option, either. You shouldn't take my theoretical disagreement with subsidizing a new 1,000 room hotel to be advocacy for doing little to nothing in general. But this particular project, for which I've admittedly not seen any specific details, does not sound on its surface like a lofty, visionary goal. It sounds like another step down the slippery slope of convention facility one-upmanship that we--and I'm just trying to be pragmatic here--can't win.

My ideas of lofty, visionary goals probably aren't that different from yours, really. Like I've said before (not that anybody listens) I want a vibrant city abuzz with development as much as any of the advocates of development subsidy on here. Aside from my desire to live in an environment like that, I have a selfish economic interest in urban Kansas City's success as an urban core property owner. So it borders on ridiculous when I see myself categorized as "regressionist" or "anti-development" or "anti-growth". Such accusations are not only wrong but they are logically fallacious, firstly by begging the question and assuming that (in this case) the answer to "Will this new hotel prove to be a good idea in the long run?" is "Yes, duh!" and secondly by essentially being ad hominem attacks. I'm happy to discuss and debate whether any particular project is a good idea, but I'd rather stick to the issues at hand.

I mean, if you'd like to see growth and development DT, what is your plan for making that happen?  What are some of your ideas?  Obviously, you do not favor tax breaks or subsidies for developers.

I'm only concerned with ideas on how to help Kansas City stay competitive.  Ideas like convention hotels and increased convention space.  Ideas like P&L, PAC, SC, etc. 

So you want to hear AKP's ideas for creating growth and development downtown, while acknowledging that he is not in favor of tax breaks or subsidies for developers, but you only want to hear ideas that would requires tax breaks or subsidies for developers? Isn't that kind of impossible? And do you really believe that the only things that help Kansas City stay competitive are convention hotels, convention space, and large scale subsidized development?

[aknowledgeableperson]

You can use silly analogies about pro sports and kids in candy stores until your blue in the face.  The fact is that you don't prioritize downtown development.  Plain and simple.  In your eyes, a "great" downtown does not necessarily require development, energy, vibrant social life, shopping, conventions, etc.  A great downtown can be merely a nice, quite, well-paved municipality with a balanced budget.  Seeing as this is a website dedicated primarily to Kansas City "Downtown" Development, I happen to find your regressive views quite maddening. 

Now, please correct me if I've mischaracterized your stance on downtown development.  I mean, if you'd like to see growth and development DT, what is your plan for making that happen?  What are some of your ideas?  Obviously, you do not favor tax breaks or subsidies for developers.  You don't care about conventions.  You don't care about tourism.  Ok, well, how does a city like Kansas City keep up with Denver, Louisville, Indy, etc.?  If you don't think we need to keep up with those cites, or that your content falling behind those cities, don't even bother responding to this post.  I'm only concerned with ideas on how to help Kansas City stay competitive.  Ideas like convention hotels and increased convention space.  Ideas like P&L, PAC, SC, etc. 

#1 When did this website become "dedicated" primarily to KC downtown development?  Most of the topics and talk is about things other than that.

#2 I have never said I was against tax breaks or subsidies, just that the city needed to be more prudent in how they were used.

#3 When did I say I was not for tourism?  I worked in that business for many, many years.  What I have said in the matter of a 1,000 room hotel is that if it is to be built then more convention space needs to be added to the mix.  And where is it written that this city has to compete with the big guys for the big conventions.  There are way, way  more small and medium size conventions, meetings, and shows around then the big ones.  And KC can compete quite well for the small and medium size ones and could more than our fair share.  Afterall, what is better?  Have one big convention that has a total of 3,000 room nights or three conventions with a grand total of 4,000 room nights?  And remember, a convention center is not used 7 days a week/365 days a year.

#4 The use of incentives should have a goal.  And that goal is not something vague like economic development or urban renewal or something else.  You need to start with a base, like # of jobs currently in the area or # of residents or total retail sales or # of hotel rooms or whatever.  Then you have a target to shoot for, like increasing the # of jobs to ---- or # of residents to ---- or whatever.  What is important with goals is that they should transcend changes in the government, from one mayor and council to another.  Also the city's citizens then has knowledge of what city leaders are hoping to accomplish with these "giveaways".  And goals establish some sort of endpoint, not that the endpoint cannot be changed, but it does give a certain finality to the process.  With regards to the convention hotel the city needs to have an idea of where they are going with the project and what it hopes to accomplish with the project.  And part of that should be a discussion of whether its citizens want to the city to go in that direction.  And if the citizens decide that the city should not pursue the "big conventions" and stay with the small and medium ones does not mean they are against downtown or it's development, they just may want to go in a different direction.  In other words your opinion of what to do downtown and what it should be is one among many different opinions.  Just because those opinions are different than yours does not make them "anti".  Now, if there is some entity out there that has made KC wildcat the holder of the one, true opinion then please let us all know who did that and when.  Then we will know that when you speak (or write) then all discussion needs to stop on that topic since the one who is blessed has let it be known what his opinion is and we are then free to go to another topic.

#5 Funny, you mentioned keeping up with Denver, Louisville, and Indy.  Well, I have to admit it will be very hard to keep up with these cities given the population of those cities compared to KCMO's population of 450K.  The latest census bureau numbers are Indy - 795K, Denver - 588K, and Louisville - 557K.  So instead of trying to keep up with those cities, or any other city, maybe KCMO just needs to try to be the best city it can be irregardless of what other cities do or do not do.  Yes, there will be disagreements over how to define "best" but that is life.  Maybe the way to become the best KCMO can be is to establish goals for the city to accomplish, not only for just downtown but for the city as a whole.

[KC-wildcat]

#1 When did this website become "dedicated" primarily to KC downtown development?  Most of the topics and talk is about things other than that. 

Well, 50% of the threads on this board are grouped under the Kansas City Development Discussion.  Of the other 50%, countless threads deal directly or indirectly with development issues.  Sorry if "dedicated" was too strong a word. 

#2 I have never said I was against tax breaks or subsidies, just that the city needed to be more prudent in how they were used. 

mmmkay.  whatever you say.  "more prudent" is one of way of spinning your stance.

#3 When did I say I was not for tourism?  I worked in that business for many, many years.  What I have said in the matter of a 1,000 room hotel is that if it is to be built then more convention space needs to be added to the mix.  And where is it written that this city has to compete with the big guys for the big conventions.  There are way, way  more small and medium size conventions, meetings, and shows around then the big ones.  And KC can compete quite well for the small and medium size ones and could more than our fair share.  Afterall, what is better?  Have one big convention that has a total of 3,000 room nights or three conventions with a grand total of 4,000 room nights?  And remember, a convention center is not used 7 days a week/365 days a year. 

Nowhere is it written that Kansas City needs to do anything.  It is, however, quite obvious that Kansas City CAN and HAS competed with the big boys for conventions.  Skills, WalMart, FFA, NAACP, etc.  Each one of these conventions has dumped mega $$$ into the pockets of the local economy.  I guess I'm crazy for thinking this is a good thing. 
And, further using your logic, where is it written that KC can't have big conventions and several small amd medium size ones?  Are they mutually exclusive? 
Also, for the record, you have been opposed to the convention hotel throughout this entire thread, Bartle's size notwithstanding. 

#4 The use of incentives should have a goal.  And that goal is not something vague like economic development or urban renewal or something else.  You need to start with a base, like # of jobs currently in the area or # of residents or total retail sales or # of hotel rooms or whatever.  Then you have a target to shoot for, like increasing the # of jobs to ---- or # of residents to ---- or whatever. 

Isn't this kind of the obvious, unstated, goal of roping in the Big conventions?  to increase $$$ and jobs.  I wasn't upset that Skills and WalMart left because "urban renewal" took a hit.  I was upset because local business lost +$10M in revenue on an annual basis.  That huge chunk of $$$ has a very tangible, negative effect on our city.  The negative effect is not some imaginary, fairy-tale issue that I've concocted in my mind.  It is real, cold, hard $$$ that the local tourism industry and local businesses have lost.  In my crazy world, this economic hit will effect the number of new businesses that pop up in and around DT, the number of potential jobs these businesses would have offered, and the number of potential new residents DT would have realized.  So, if I haven't stated it clearly enough, my GOAL is fill the gap left by Wal-Mart, FFA, and Skills - among others - on an annual basis.  So, considering that KC will lose close to $15M a year without these big hitters, we must draw enough small and medium sized conventions to compensate for this loss.  In effect, the local economy will not lose out.   

Just because those opinions are different than yours does not make them "anti".  Now, if there is some entity out there that has made KC wildcat the holder of the one, true opinion then please let us all know who did that and when.  Then we will know that when you speak (or write) then all discussion needs to stop on that topic since the one who is blessed has let it be known what his opinion is and we are then free to go to another topic.

AKP, I state my views because I believe them to be true.  I hold a particular stance because I believe it is the correct stance.  I believe my idea of how DT development should be approached is the right idea.  These things are called "opinions."  If I didn't think my opinion was correct, I wouldn't hold that opinion.  Just as I opine that you are a backward, negative, regressive defeatist.  This is my opinion.  This is not to say it's set in stone.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an internet forum where opinions are traded, right?  Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but your name is "Aknowledgeable" person.  As such, you are frequently littering threads throughout this forum with your personal opinions on how things work, how things ought to work, and what the true state of the situation is.  If anybody needs to relax a little bit, I'm not quite sure it's me. 
Now, in terms of DT development, I do think you're incorrect.  Just as you think I'm incorrect.  Don't think I've ever personally insulted you though.  I just try to show you the flaws in your logic.  Not unlike what you do to other people all day long in this thread and others. 

#5 Funny, you mentioned keeping up with Denver, Louisville, and Indy.  Well, I have to admit it will be very hard to keep up with these cities given the population of those cities compared to KCMO's population of 450K.  The latest census bureau numbers are Indy - 795K, Denver - 588K, and Louisville - 557K.  So instead of trying to keep up with those cities, or any other city, maybe KCMO just needs to try to be the best city it can be irregardless of what other cities do or do not do.  Yes, there will be disagreements over how to define "best" but that is life.  Maybe the way to become the best KCMO can be is to establish goals for the city to accomplish, not only for just downtown but for the city as a whole.

Whatever, I live in reality, not in patty-cake land where everything is happy and good so long as you "try your best."  Seriously, is this a game of little league baseball.  Reality dictates that you keep up or get left behind.  This is so simple that I won't even waste my time expounding on it.  Some examples, though.  Nelson addition, PAC, SC, P&L, Union Station, TSC, WWI Museum.  These things were done to keep our city competitive.  They were not cute little endeavors to make KC a swell place to raise the kids. 

[advocrat]

I used to work with a woman who knew a honcho with Kansas City Convention and Visitors Bureau named Mike White. Back in the mid-to-late 1980's he decreed that Kansas City should go after the mid-sized convention market. Well we've seen how well that worked for our economic prosperity.

A mid-sized city, with mid-sized ambitions and mid-sized expectations for no growth; and small sized appreciation for the city by the rest of the nation.

What a recipe for an inferior self-image. 

[missingkc]

A mid-sized city, with mid-sized ambitions and mid-sized expectations for no growth; and small sized appreciation for the city by the rest of the nation.

What a recipe for an inferior self-image.

I agree with you entirely.  KC has been full of "leaders" that pursue the mediocre.  Mike White's comment reminds me of Pete Levi's about 10 years ago when he opined that a 1% annual growth rate for the metro was just great because it kept you from having the problems associated with rapid growth.

It seems that there was a whole generation of KC leaders (some Kempers, Dick Berkeley, Nutter) whose economic development mantra has been "Kansas City, by God, is not going to be Dallas".  To the degree that Kansas City has not, it is because those guys have wanted not.