Status and future of the River Market area??

[KCPowercat]

That sounds like a real shit show of political paybacks.

[DaveKCMO]

Are you talking about the ped/bike bridge to Berkley Park?

Yes.

[kboish]

That sounds like a real shit show of political paybacks.

I don't think its payback. I think Bunch was just the only one willing to question how we are using the money toward projects that wasn't the bonds original intent (which the bike/ped bridge could be argued as "new" infra or not highest priority). And since he wasn't trying to take down others projects, his were the only ones removed. His broader point is correct. But for some reason it was impossible to remove other projects even though council members agreed that a number of current projects don't fit the funding source.

The shit show is that they are over spending each year. The bond was projected to be spent at a $40 million yearly clip. I don't think they have spent less than $50 a year. This year they were projected to spend $78 million (part of why the conversation began). Egregiously, they are planning to spend $20 million of this on road resurfacing. they are making the argument that they need to "catch up" so that more roads don't deteriorate to rebuild status. And this here is the problem, you can make a case for anything, but is that really what the money is for? Supposedly this is a one time spend, but you can just see this sliding into a regular use. And that is a real problem. The GO Bond was sold as LONG-TERM infra with PIAC going to short-term infra like resurfacing. It only took 3-years for that to go out the window.

There is no leadership from the council on transportation and infrastructure spending and it really shows. And it is really hurting the city.

[KCPowercat]

It could be argued it's not new infrastructure. It's fixing infrastructure by adding a sidewalk where the city should have added one in the first place. Just like the bond called for.

Ironic this is the project cut.

[kboish]

I'm with you. This project has lots of justification.

My criticism falls largely to everything else being funded in the program. It seems there is hope going forward with PW reorganization...but politics can always screw that up.

[KCPowercat]

For sure.

[smh]

Would love to get to a point where the bureaucracy is sufficiently competent that council doesn't have to get so far into the weeds on this stuff.

***continues to wish in perpetuity***

[GRID]

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... oE-YV_gY-o

This is dumb. As somebody that has flow into and out of MKC dozens of times, including many photo flights right over downtown. I don't think I have ever flown directly over the River Market area. Ever. No flight patterns take you over the river market let alone that low over the river market.

If you are flying low enough to come within 100 feet of a 12 story building in the River Market, you are going to have much bigger problems outside the River Market with much taller towers, bridges and airport airspace issues.

[KCPowercat]

Very. Given the geographic position wouldn't this still be lower than the Delaware buildings?

[normalthings]

I was told by project team members that City Harvest and Defeo applied for exceptions to the existing FAA limit. These requests were made recently so I really doubt that they already got a response. FAA sounded eager to work with them. I think instead F&C was just showing the neighborhood what the project would look like if they for whatever reason didn't get one.

[GRID]

I was told by project team members that City Harvest and Defeo applied for exceptions to the existing FAA limit. These requests were made recently so I really doubt that they already got a response. FAA sounded eager to work with them. I think instead F&C was just showing the neighborhood what the project would look like if they for whatever reason didn't get one. Biz Journal took that and ran a click baity article.

The article says they have applied for a waiver and have a backup plan for a much smaller 8 story project. Just saying that the FAA better approve it. They have no real reason not to. Planes basically do not fly in the downtown area south of the airport.

They stay to the east and west of downtown mainly because that's the best way to approach or leave MKC but also because they don't like to fly downtown because of the tall communication towers (and guy wires) in Midtown so they circle clear around those towers and downtown.

If you see small planes or even helicopters downtown, they tend to be outside that circle of downtown/tv towers. Planes for sure won't be flying there and it would be non factor for the few helicopters that do. The River Market is not even part of the equation. Quality Hill yes. River Market no.

I guess my point is that the FAA should raise the limit in the River Market / River Front area to 15 stories or so. It's just unnecessary red tape for everybody.

[DColeKC]

I was told by project team members that City Harvest and Defeo applied for exceptions to the existing FAA limit. These requests were made recently so I really doubt that they already got a response. FAA sounded eager to work with them. I think instead F&C was just showing the neighborhood what the project would look like if they for whatever reason didn't get one. Biz Journal took that and ran a click baity article.

The article says they have applied for a waiver and have a backup plan for a much smaller 8 story project. Just saying that the FAA better approve it. They have no real reason not to. Planes basically do not fly in the downtown area south of the airport.

They stay to the east and west of downtown mainly because that's the best way to approach or leave MKC but also because they don't like to fly downtown because of the tall communication towers (and guy wires) in Midtown so they circle clear around those towers and downtown.

If you see small planes or even helicopters downtown, they tend to be outside that circle of downtown/tv towers. Planes for sure won't be flying there and it would be non factor for the few helicopters that do. The River Market is not even part of the equation. Quality Hill yes. River Market no.

I guess my point is that the FAA should raise the limit in the River Market / River Front area to 15 stories or so. It's just unnecessary red tape for everybody.

Agree 100%. Have my pilots license and have flown in and out of MKC many times. Can't imagine why I'd ever have the need to fly over the river market.

[smh]

Yeah I don't think there is actually any new news here. I mean, I appreciate seeing it written down but I think this was the understanding all along. So no cause for alarm.

[normalthings]

3rd and Grand was paused again. Bunch wants a bikeway added down the road which would require the project to move some. The developer agreed but the City/Council isn't able to tell the developer how much land they need to give up. The developer gave a proposal for reworking the project but Bunch isn't in support of it at this point.

"tell me what you want so we can move forward" - the developer
"no, I want the bikeway designed first" - Bunch

Staff trying to work out the project but Shields supports reducing the number of parking spaces that are there now. "I would want to drive but I am trying to learn what the younger people want and how they think."

Shields is the source for this.

[ToDactivist]

glimmer of hope in last comment...

[flyingember]

glimmer of hope in last comment...

There's a school project in the 4th where they're trying to get out of adding a piece of missing sidewalk along the street. it's been missing for 65 years.

I'm hoping he's as strict on sidewalks for kids as he is for bike lanes downtown.

[Riverite]

glimmer of hope in last comment...

There's a school project in the 4th where they're trying to get out of adding a piece of missing sidewalk along the street. it's been missing for 65 years.

I'm hoping he's as strict on sidewalks for kids as he is for bike lanes downtown.

I’m sure if someone approached him about it he would be

[flyingember]

glimmer of hope in last comment...

There's a school project in the 4th where they're trying to get out of adding a piece of missing sidewalk along the street. it's been missing for 65 years.

I'm hoping he's as strict on sidewalks for kids as he is for bike lanes downtown.

I’m sure if someone approached him about it he would be

That and then some has been done

This kind of change shows the flaws in the process.

A project shouldn't reach the council and fall down hard. The council should be setting down requirements in zoning and code that tells developers they need to do something.

[ToDactivist]

agreed micromanaging is the result of a lack of a strategic plan...same as to the reactive nature of incentive requests.

[FangKC]

glimmer of hope in last comment...

There's a school project in the 4th where they're trying to get out of adding a piece of missing sidewalk along the street. it's been missing for 65 years.

I'm hoping he's as strict on sidewalks for kids as he is for bike lanes downtown.

The City has had a lot of insane policies in the past. For example, the City ordinance about shoveling snow within so many days after a snowfall. Or until recently, the homeowner being responsible for fixing broken sidewalks, which in some cases could cost thousands. Some properties have sidewalks and some have none. So one homeowner has the burden of shoveling -- or paying someone to do it -- while someone across the street doesn't. One homeowner used to have to spend thousands if their sidewalks required repair, while their neighbor didn't. Many property owners in older neighborhoods live in poverty, or are low fixed-incomes.

I'm all for property owners clearing snow. However, sidewalks are infrastructure. The property owner may never walk on their own--or any--sidewalks in the neighborhood. But, all their neighbors do -- even the ones across the street who don't have sidewalks on their property.

If a neighborhood was developed with sidewalks on only one side of the street, then sidewalk repair should be a shared financial burden, and not the responsibility alone of the property owner who has misfortune to live on that side of the street.

Fortunately, the City removed that single responsibility for sidewalk repair from property owners.