Downtown New Residential Units

[DColeKC]

…

[aknowledgeableperson]

"If you want housing built where there is no intention of making a profit,"

That's not the point. I am all for profit and such but when a developer uses the government dime in any fashion to make a developer's profit then the government should have a say in that development. No government should provide a subsidy without restrictions or requirements. If that involves subsidized or market rate living quarters then so be it.

[DColeKC]

"If you want housing built where there is no intention of making a profit,"

That's not the point. I am all for profit and such but when a developer uses the government dime in any fashion to make a developer's profit then the government should have a say in that development. No government should provide a subsidy without restrictions or requirements. If that involves subsidized or market rate living quarters then so be it.

My point is profit is what has got us to where we are in this country. The innovation and entrepreneurialism of this country has resulted in us being the richest country on the planet.

I’m 150% in support of affordable housing. Like previously mentioned I was raised in poverty and myself required government assistance with my housing right out of high school. I hated it and felt less than great about being in that situation. It was what motivated me to improve my life.

The government and developers have made adjustments like including affordable housing in every new building. I understand this requirement in insanely packed parts of the world like nyc where it’s literally about having enough physical apartments to house the population. But here in KC, we have tons of space and instead it’s been made about fairness, not necessity. Kc tenants group doesn’t even appreciate that positive step. Can they, as a group, at least come up with what they think is fair per month, per bedroom and what level or quality of apartments they expect for that price? Let’s start there and I’ll take them seriously.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"The government and developers have made adjustments like including affordable housing in every new building. I understand this requirement in insanely packed parts of the world like nyc where it’s literally about having enough physical apartments to house the population. But here in KC, we have tons of space and instead it’s been made about fairness, not necessity. Kc tenants group doesn’t even appreciate that positive step. Can they, as a group, at least come up with what they think is fair per month, per bedroom and what level or quality of apartments they expect for that price? Let’s start there and I’ll take them seriously."

A necessity for one can be not a necessity for another. When one comes into a neighborhood and starts transforming the neighborhood into something the current residents can not afford then I can definitely see the displaced ones not happy. And as I say if said developer wants, or needs, a government subsidy in order to make a "reasonable" profit then that assistance should not come "free". Maybe it should be the developer taking the first step in what would be eventually a compromise in the plan instead of a tenants group.

[DColeKC]

"The government and developers have made adjustments like including affordable housing in every new building. I understand this requirement in insanely packed parts of the world like nyc where it’s literally about having enough physical apartments to house the population. But here in KC, we have tons of space and instead it’s been made about fairness, not necessity. Kc tenants group doesn’t even appreciate that positive step. Can they, as a group, at least come up with what they think is fair per month, per bedroom and what level or quality of apartments they expect for that price? Let’s start there and I’ll take them seriously."

A necessity for one can be not a necessity for another. When one comes into a neighborhood and starts transforming the neighborhood into something the current residents can not afford then I can definitely see the displaced ones not happy. And as I say if said developer wants, or needs, a government subsidy in order to make a "reasonable" profit then that assistance should not come "free". Maybe it should be the developer taking the first step in what would be eventually a compromise in the plan instead of a tenants group.

The compromises were made before this group even existed and they had nothing to do with it happening.

Cordish for example could have fought back as they had a existing master development agreement but instead, they compromised. They also know what makes a neighborhood great is the eclectic mix of residents. This includes people of various income levels.

I just spent time on kc tenants site. Not a single mission statement or description in the about section. The bios of the leadership is filled with things like, “born to mixed parents”, “struggled for years to find housing due to depression” and “cancer survivor”. It’s your typical victim advocacy group with no actual ideas or realistic goals to achieve affordable housing.

[phuqueue]

"If you want housing built where there is no intention of making a profit,"

That's not the point. I am all for profit and such but when a developer uses the government dime in any fashion to make a developer's profit then the government should have a say in that development. No government should provide a subsidy without restrictions or requirements. If that involves subsidized or market rate living quarters then so be it.

My point is profit is what has got us to where we are in this country. The innovation and entrepreneurialism of this country has resulted in us being the richest country on the planet.

"Richest" by what standard? That by some, but not all, metrics, we have the highest GDP? Who cares? We don't have the highest per capita income. By various quality of life metrics, we consistently lag virtually all of the countries that we consider our peers. To this conversation's point, depending on who is counting and who they count, we have at least hundreds of thousands to well over a million homeless people in this country. GDP is just a number, and one that masks large wealth disparities and tremendous poverty. If the country's wealth is not being put to use improving the lives of the country's people, it may as well not exist. This is where our obsession with profit has gotten us.

The government and developers have made adjustments like including affordable housing in every new building. I understand this requirement in insanely packed parts of the world like nyc where it’s literally about having enough physical apartments to house the population. But here in KC, we have tons of space and instead it’s been made about fairness, not necessity. Kc tenants group doesn’t even appreciate that positive step. Can they, as a group, at least come up with what they think is fair per month, per bedroom and what level or quality of apartments they expect for that price? Let’s start there and I’ll take them seriously.

Why are you the arbiter of what qualifies as "necessary" vs. what is merely "fair"? And why should we consider "fairness," however we are defining it, unnecessary?

I just spent time on kc tenants site. Not a single mission statement or description in the about section. The bios of the leadership is filled with things like, “born to mixed parents”, “struggled for years to find housing due to depression” and “cancer survivor”. It’s your typical victim advocacy group with no actual ideas or realistic goals to achieve affordable housing.

For what it's worth, they do have a platform, which has been discussed (mostly ridiculed) on this board in the past. From a cursory glance at their website, I don't see where they link to it at all, so it doesn't seem to be very easy to find anymore, which is a curious choice on their part. Though it has not been especially popular on this board, nothing in the platform is really groundbreaking or reinventing the wheel, it just requires funding and political will, which they are trying to build through the activism that rankles so many people here. Agree or disagree with their platform if you want (I confess that I have a hunch which side you will fall on), but it does exist.

[DColeKC]

Richest by GDP which is the most important factor in the overall geopolitical realm.

KC Tenants want 22,000 apartments priced at $500 or less. They pretend these new developments are pushing them further away from public transportation and downtown. They weren’t living downtown to begin with. Not in significant numbers anyway.

And lastly, I’m not the arbiter of fairness and necessity. The point I was making is that in tightly compacted ecosystems like Manhattan, you need a high level focus on affordable housing simply because space is a premium. In kc we don’t need to make the first few floors of every new building affordable units or eat up prime real estate for affordable housing. We have the space to build new affordable housing close to public transportation and in close proximity to all things needed for basic living.

[phuqueue]

Go tell somebody who can't afford their rent not to worry because we have the highest GDP, I'm sure that will solve everything.

The point you very explicitly made is that affordable housing is "necessary" in some places but merely "fair" in KC. I would be interested to know who has decided which is which if not you. Who cares how much space there is to build affordable housing? Is affordable housing actually being built on that space? I mean, according to you, no landlord could afford to do that. And even if they could, ungrateful tenants would complain about this or that, which is apparently as good a reason as any not to do it in the first place.

[beautyfromashes]

Go tell somebody who can't afford their rent not to worry because we have the highest GDP, I'm sure that will solve everything.

The point you very explicitly made is that affordable housing is "necessary" in some places but merely "fair" in KC. I would be interested to know who has decided which is which if not you. Who cares how much space there is to build affordable housing? Is affordable housing actually being built on that space? I mean, according to you, no landlord could afford to do that. And even if they could, ungrateful tenants would complain about this or that, which is apparently as good a reason as any not to do it in the first place.

The real question is what is affordable in this market. We had for many decades a depressed core where there was lots of old stock apartments with prices that were incredibly low. Outside of this donut hole of very cheap housing prices were much higher. Now, that that hole in the heart of the city is being filled in, the complaint is that it's gone. But it shouldn't have been there in the first place. And do you blame the anomaly area that is just now catching up to the rest of the city, or do you blame 90% of the city that has always been outpriced for the very poor? Trying to set aside a certain part of the city in the very heart as artificially underpriced while taking no action on literally any other area of the city seems very problematic. This is my major complaint with KCT. They have a valid point about affordability. They take zero action in Overland Park or Lee's Summit or Liberty or any other area besides areas that have historically been depressed and are starting to turn themselves better.

[phuqueue]

I understand what you mean, but I don't really agree that the inner core should never have been affordable in the first place. We can obviously agree that it should never have been affordable for the specific reason that it was, though. I think everyone has a right to stay in their home, and I think everyone has a right to a home that is near and easily accessible to their employment, family, etc (I don't think it is genuinely "affordable" to tell somebody that here is a home with a sticker price that is nominally within your budget but also you have to spend two hours taking three buses each way to and from work, hopefully there's a grocery store next to one of the stops cuz there sure isn't one near the home, etc). I don't think that wealthier people deciding they like the city after all now is sufficient justification for them to come back and start pushing out the people who stayed there all along.

While I think Overland Park has the same obligation to provide affordable housing to its residents as any other jurisdiction, I don't really have a problem with KCT if they aren't very concerned about what Overland Park is doing (I will take your word for it that they don't take any action in the suburbs -- I get all my news about KCT from angry screeds on this board, so if somebody here isn't mad about an action they took, I am unlikely to hear about it). At the risk of generalizing, I am gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most of KCT's membership doesn't live in or have much connection to Overland Park for some very obvious historical reasons. That gives them less reason to care about Overland Park, but significantly, it also gives Overland Park zero reason to care about them, because they aren't constituents of elected officials there. It would be nice if there were some kind of metro-wide mechanism for getting all of the municipalities on the same page, but there isn't, and that's by design, because Overland Park exists in the first place so that affluent white people can escape any obligation to contribute to the rest of the metro. While that is a problem too, I don't think it is helpful to get bogged down with it or let it become a distraction while people in KC are, right now, living in decrepit housing owned by exploitative landlords or are losing their homes entirely. Is it fair that KC has to take this on while still playing catch-up to the suburbs? No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think this point here is the main issue that the board overall (myself included) has with KCT and their methods. The goal of development should never be to displace residents who currently live in the area. The recent actions by KCT, though, are actively stifling market rate & “luxury” (which is really just at the top end of market rate) units from being constructed, primarily developments that would exist in place of empty lots.

You hit the point previous as well that people are going to continue moving back into the city, and yes, it’s usually people with money. Shouldn’t the goal be to flesh out units and housing that those folks will seek out, so as to not drive long time residents out of the neighborhood? I feel as though that’s the biggest issue with this discourse though, is that both sides of the argument just talk past each other, but both sides would like a similar outcome (given I don’t agree that socialized housing is the best solution to this problem as KCT does, but I digress)

[beautyfromashes]

...Overland Park (suburbs) exists in the first place so that affluent white people can escape any obligation to contribute to the rest of the metro. While that is a problem too, I don't think it is helpful to get bogged down with it or let it become a distraction while people in KC are, right now, living in decrepit housing owned by exploitative landlords or are losing their homes entirely. Is it fair that KC has to take this on while still playing catch-up to the suburbs? No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think it's the main issue to be "bogged down with". Until the issue of poverty is handled in a more distributive way, the issue will continue to compound. If all the poor are required by necessity (either due to transportation or housing costs) to locate in one area, the poverty will continue to persist because poverty causes bad schools and crime and other social problems that can be dealt with if happening in small quantities while large quantities in small confines seems to overload any possibility of change. Until the problem is forced to be confronted by the affluent who are hiding from it in rich zip codes the problem will continue. KCT either is missing that reality or is too scared to confront it directly.

[phuqueue]

No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think this point here is the main issue that the board overall (myself included) has with KCT and their methods. The goal of development should never be to displace residents who currently live in the area. The recent actions by KCT, though, are actively stifling market rate & “luxury” (which is really just at the top end of market rate) units from being constructed, primarily developments that would exist in place of empty lots.

You hit the point previous as well that people are going to continue moving back into the city, and yes, it’s usually people with money. Shouldn’t the goal be to flesh out units and housing that those folks will seek out, so as to not drive long time residents out of the neighborhood? I feel as though that’s the biggest issue with this discourse though, is that both sides of the argument just talk past each other, but both sides would like a similar outcome (given I don’t agree that socialized housing is the best solution to this problem as KCT does, but I digress)

I think that your last sentence is basically correct, that the ultimate goals of KCT and of most of the people on this board are not fundamentally incompatible. Of course, as you yourself point out in disagreeing about socialized housing, some on this board might not like KCT's goals from a political perspective, but in terms of what the city itself looks like on the ground, the built environment and the experience of living in that urban area, I think there can be a city that pleases both KCT and this board.

Where the disagreement arises is in KCT's tactics, again as you point out. But I think that the talking past each other takes place because KCT's goals and this board's goals, though not mutually incompatible, are also not the same. Although there is a lot of rhetorical support on this board for affordable housing as an abstract concept, I have never seen anybody on this board suggest a means to achieving it aside from "let developers build," and I don't believe there is a great deal of concern among most of us about whether we actually end up with affordable housing. It matters less what the "goal" of development is than what its actual outcome is. In principle, what you are proposing here -- build higher end housing on empty lots that can appeal to newcomers without displacing existing residents -- sounds great. But in practice, it doesn't work out so neatly. As wealthier newcomers move into the neighborhood, amenities that were previously missing begin to follow them, making the whole neighborhood more desirable. The landlords owning the existing buildings full of long-time residents start to realize that they can charge higher rent for these units (much higher still if they are willing to renovate the building, and many are) as more affluent people want into this increasingly desirable neighborhood. You also eventually begin to hit a tipping point where the "newcomers," who after some years are no longer so new, decide that they like the neighborhood the way that it is, so they start fighting new development. In particular, homeowners in the neighborhood don't want to see their "investment" diluted by new housing. Everybody agrees in theory that we should have low-income housing and housing for the homeless, but nobody wants it near their own home, so it ends up not getting built. Everything just continues to get more expensive.

I'm not wholly unsympathetic to the argument that we need more housing, which is simply true, we do. But I'm also not unsympathetic to people like the members of KCT trying to short circuit this process that is otherwise going to end up with them getting priced out of their homes. If you want to stop talking past each other, I think there needs to be genuine shared concern about the affordability of housing and a strategy in place that is expressly intended to achieve affordability. You don't have to like KCT's proposals, but the counterproposal has to be something more than what this board has produced, which has mostly just been to alternately deny that affordability is a problem at all or argue that because of "economics," rubber stamping all proposed developments will ultimately achieve affordability. KCT uses the tactics that are available to it to exert any kind of leverage over this process, and I imagine that they will continue to do so unless/until there is a real conversation among all stakeholders about how to actually achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, including affordability.

...Overland Park (suburbs) exists in the first place so that affluent white people can escape any obligation to contribute to the rest of the metro. While that is a problem too, I don't think it is helpful to get bogged down with it or let it become a distraction while people in KC are, right now, living in decrepit housing owned by exploitative landlords or are losing their homes entirely. Is it fair that KC has to take this on while still playing catch-up to the suburbs? No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think it's the main issue to be "bogged down with". Until the issue of poverty is handled in a more distributive way, the issue will continue to compound. If all the poor are required by necessity (either due to transportation or housing costs) to locate in one area, the poverty will continue to persist because poverty causes bad schools and crime and other social problems that can be dealt with if happening in small quantities while large quantities in small confines seems to overload any possibility of change. Until the problem is forced to be confronted by the affluent who are hiding from it in rich zip codes the problem will continue. KCT either is missing that reality or is too scared to confront it directly.

Ok, but the fundamental constitutional structure of this country prevents this problem from being confronted, at least as it concerns JoCo, which is in another state. That is the reality that you seem to be missing (or too scared to confront directly?). Maybe you can get some kind of county-level initiative in place to force Lee's Summit, Independence, etc to play ball. Maybe you can get something done at the state level to force Liberty to the table. All very doubtful, but sure, maybe. But there is no mechanism to get JoCo to do anything here. I guess you can go ask really nicely and see if they will voluntarily participate. Have you tried that? In the meantime, complaining about Overland Park is just an excuse not to do anything about the immediate problems affecting KCMO residents.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think this point here is the main issue that the board overall (myself included) has with KCT and their methods. The goal of development should never be to displace residents who currently live in the area. The recent actions by KCT, though, are actively stifling market rate & “luxury” (which is really just at the top end of market rate) units from being constructed, primarily developments that would exist in place of empty lots.

You hit the point previous as well that people are going to continue moving back into the city, and yes, it’s usually people with money. Shouldn’t the goal be to flesh out units and housing that those folks will seek out, so as to not drive long time residents out of the neighborhood? I feel as though that’s the biggest issue with this discourse though, is that both sides of the argument just talk past each other, but both sides would like a similar outcome (given I don’t agree that socialized housing is the best solution to this problem as KCT does, but I digress)

I think that your last sentence is basically correct, that the ultimate goals of KCT and of most of the people on this board are not fundamentally incompatible. Of course, as you yourself point out in disagreeing about socialized housing, some on this board might not like KCT's goals from a political perspective, but in terms of what the city itself looks like on the ground, the built environment and the experience of living in that urban area, I think there can be a city that pleases both KCT and this board.

Where the disagreement arises is in KCT's tactics, again as you point out. But I think that the talking past each other takes place because KCT's goals and this board's goals, though not mutually incompatible, are also not the same. Although there is a lot of rhetorical support on this board for affordable housing as an abstract concept, I have never seen anybody on this board suggest a means to achieving it aside from "let developers build," and I don't believe there is a great deal of concern among most of us about whether we actually end up with affordable housing. It matters less what the "goal" of development is than what its actual outcome is. In principle, what you are proposing here -- build higher end housing on empty lots that can appeal to newcomers without displacing existing residents -- sounds great. But in practice, it doesn't work out so neatly. As wealthier newcomers move into the neighborhood, amenities that were previously missing begin to follow them, making the whole neighborhood more desirable. The landlords owning the existing buildings full of long-time residents start to realize that they can charge higher rent for these units (much higher still if they are willing to renovate the building, and many are) as more affluent people want into this increasingly desirable neighborhood. You also eventually begin to hit a tipping point where the "newcomers," who after some years are no longer so new, decide that they like the neighborhood the way that it is, so they start fighting new development. In particular, homeowners in the neighborhood don't want to see their "investment" diluted by new housing. Everybody agrees in theory that we should have low-income housing and housing for the homeless, but nobody wants it near their own home, so it ends up not getting built. Everything just continues to get more expensive.

I'm not wholly unsympathetic to the argument that we need more housing, which is simply true, we do. But I'm also not unsympathetic to people like the members of KCT trying to short circuit this process that is otherwise going to end up with them getting priced out of their homes. If you want to stop talking past each other, I think there needs to be genuine shared concern about the affordability of housing and a strategy in place that is expressly intended to achieve affordability. You don't have to like KCT's proposals, but the counterproposal has to be something more than what this board has produced, which has mostly just been to alternately deny that affordability is a problem at all or argue that because of "economics," rubber stamping all proposed developments will ultimately achieve affordability. KCT uses the tactics that are available to it to exert any kind of leverage over this process, and I imagine that they will continue to do so unless/until there is a real conversation among all stakeholders about how to actually achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, including affordability.

I don’t disagree with main point here, and should we ever hope to truly resolve this issue you’re definitely going to have to have compromises and meeting in the middle from both sides. I do think though that the downplaying of the economic factors is a little disingenuous though.

While yes, we absolutely shouldn’t have a blanket rubber stamping policy when it comes to development, we also shouldn’t be making the process unnecessarily arduous, and then when a developer completes this, and meets the requirements, they still receive a denial. Development is a precarious balancing act of both macro and micro economic factors. Yes the KC development market is fairly hot rn, but that doesn’t compensate for the fact that we’re still a midsized market, with midwestern pricing. The ROI for a project here could be a fraction of the coastal markets solely due to that fact alone, add on top of that a requirement to generate even lower income from a development, and you start to see the difficulty.

I’m not by any means claiming that we should give every developer the whole world here, but recognizing that new build is the most cost intensive housing to construct, we have to bring people a little closer to reality in regards to the amount of affordable units that should be expected to accompany new construction.

[beautyfromashes]

Ok, but the fundamental constitutional structure of this country prevents this problem from being confronted, at least as it concerns JoCo, which is in another state. That is the reality that you seem to be missing (or too scared to confront directly?). Maybe you can get some kind of county-level initiative in place to force Lee's Summit, Independence, etc to play ball. Maybe you can get something done at the state level to force Liberty to the table. All very doubtful, but sure, maybe. But there is no mechanism to get JoCo to do anything here. I guess you can go ask really nicely and see if they will voluntarily participate. Have you tried that? In the meantime, complaining about Overland Park is just an excuse not to do anything about the immediate problems affecting KCMO residents.

I don't get your point as it relates to my statement. Does KCT have to care about state or city lines? Why is their political focus solely in KCMO? They seem to ignore the main injustice to pursue the scraps that they were left with.

[Cratedigger]

Ok, but the fundamental constitutional structure of this country prevents this problem from being confronted, at least as it concerns JoCo, which is in another state. That is the reality that you seem to be missing (or too scared to confront directly?). Maybe you can get some kind of county-level initiative in place to force Lee's Summit, Independence, etc to play ball. Maybe you can get something done at the state level to force Liberty to the table. All very doubtful, but sure, maybe. But there is no mechanism to get JoCo to do anything here. I guess you can go ask really nicely and see if they will voluntarily participate. Have you tried that? In the meantime, complaining about Overland Park is just an excuse not to do anything about the immediate problems affecting KCMO residents.

I don't get your point as it relates to my statement. Does KCT have to care about state or city lines? Why is their political focus solely in KCMO? They seem to ignore the main injustice to pursue the scraps that they were left with.

No - KCT shouldn't focus solely on KCMO. There's no reason they need to care about state or city lines. However, they do focus on KCMO because that is likely where most of their members currently live.

I wonder if they will make any moves in JoCo. One of their founders, Tara Raghuveer, went to SME and with Panasonic coming in JoCo truly does need more affordable housing.

[phuqueue]

I don’t disagree with main point here, and should we ever hope to truly resolve this issue you’re definitely going to have to have compromises and meeting in the middle from both sides. I do think though that the downplaying of the economic factors is a little disingenuous though.

While yes, we absolutely shouldn’t have a blanket rubber stamping policy when it comes to development, we also shouldn’t be making the process unnecessarily arduous, and then when a developer completes this, and meets the requirements, they still receive a denial. Development is a precarious balancing act of both macro and micro economic factors. Yes the KC development market is fairly hot rn, but that doesn’t compensate for the fact that we’re still a midsized market, with midwestern pricing. The ROI for a project here could be a fraction of the coastal markets solely due to that fact alone, add on top of that a requirement to generate even lower income from a development, and you start to see the difficulty.

I’m not by any means claiming that we should give every developer the whole world here, but recognizing that new build is the most cost intensive housing to construct, we have to bring people a little closer to reality in regards to the amount of affordable units that should be expected to accompany new construction.

But this is exactly why housing shouldn't be treated as a commodity to be bought and sold on the market and to generate profits for sellers. DCole also made the point earlier in this thread that landlords can't afford to offer $500 apartments, and I don't know whether or not that is actually true, but I don't see any particular reason to doubt it. If developers and landlords can't afford to provide affordable housing, then we can't rely on developers and landlords to provide affordable housing. Of course, building affordable housing from scratch is generally not the argument, the argument is that by building any housing, even at the top of the market, other existing housing becomes more affordable, but as nice as this sounds in theory, it doesn't necessarily work so well in real life. That is where aspects of the KCT platform come in, like public housing and public purchase. You don't have to like or agree with those proposals, but then what are yours?

Ok, but the fundamental constitutional structure of this country prevents this problem from being confronted, at least as it concerns JoCo, which is in another state. That is the reality that you seem to be missing (or too scared to confront directly?). Maybe you can get some kind of county-level initiative in place to force Lee's Summit, Independence, etc to play ball. Maybe you can get something done at the state level to force Liberty to the table. All very doubtful, but sure, maybe. But there is no mechanism to get JoCo to do anything here. I guess you can go ask really nicely and see if they will voluntarily participate. Have you tried that? In the meantime, complaining about Overland Park is just an excuse not to do anything about the immediate problems affecting KCMO residents.

I don't get your point as it relates to my statement. Does KCT have to care about state or city lines? Why is their political focus solely in KCMO? They seem to ignore the main injustice to pursue the scraps that they were left with.

No - KCT shouldn't focus solely on KCMO. There's no reason they need to care about state or city lines. However, they do focus on KCMO because that is likely where most of their members currently live.

I wonder if they will make any moves in JoCo. One of their founders, Tara Raghuveer, went to SME and with Panasonic coming in JoCo truly does need more affordable housing.

Bingo. As I previously said:

I am gonna go out on a limb here and guess that most of KCT's membership doesn't live in or have much connection to Overland Park for some very obvious historical reasons. That gives them less reason to care about Overland Park, but significantly, it also gives Overland Park zero reason to care about them, because they aren't constituents of elected officials there.

It's all one metro and ideally these problems would be addressed on a metro-wide basis, but if KCT members don't live in JoCo then they have no leverage over what JoCo does.

[DColeKC]

Go tell somebody who can't afford their rent not to worry because we have the highest GDP, I'm sure that will solve everything.

The point you very explicitly made is that affordable housing is "necessary" in some places but merely "fair" in KC. I would be interested to know who has decided which is which if not you. Who cares how much space there is to build affordable housing? Is affordable housing actually being built on that space? I mean, according to you, no landlord could afford to do that. And even if they could, ungrateful tenants would complain about this or that, which is apparently as good a reason as any not to do it in the first place.

I should start writing small novels as you do apparently or else you're going to constantly spin my comments into whatever you think I'm saying.

Have you ever been on government assistance? Have you ever lived in section 8 housing or below the poverty line in your lifetime?

Regardless, the fact we have the highest GDP means we have the ability to fix these issues whereas other countries might not. Even the favored countries always mentioned as the best, happiest and on and on have the same public housing and affordable housing issues we do.

Since you're clearly ignorant to the facts, I never said affordable housing isn't a necessity. I said there's no reason to strong arm or force developers of new market rate apartments to include affordable housing options within their new builds in KC because we have the space to required to not only build affordable housing, but do so in a meaningful way. The local, state and federal government could do so much to make building dedicated affordable housing projects actually happen. That's the only way to ensure it will happen and be held to a certain standard that avoids slumlords being in charge.

I've not commented on tenant unions being ungrateful or complaining. I agreed that is a great reason to band together. As someone who has experience with terrible landlords, I see the value. Just as I appreciate the need for affordable housing.

[beautyfromashes]

It's all one metro and ideally these problems would be addressed on a metro-wide basis, but if KCT members don't live in JoCo then they have no leverage over what JoCo does.

yeah, I just disagree with this. Advocacy groups don't have to be founded or have a majority of their members in a municipality to be affective and fight for change. Honestly, for me, it's the major reason I'm against KCT. If their messaging was about creating metro-wide systems that provide housing in all corners of the city, I'd be for them. That they merely are against the lifting up of an area (like Armour) just so they can maintain their cheap rent in a very small part of the city is problematic. That their solution is to have luxury condos designate a few units for those with low taxable income just shows me that they're more about making noise and getting revenge on those they feel are causing their displacement instead of solving a very real issue.

[Highlander]

No. But then, it isn't fair to lose your home because somebody with more money came in and decided they wanted it either.

I think this point here is the main issue that the board overall (myself included) has with KCT and their methods. The goal of development should never be to displace residents who currently live in the area. The recent actions by KCT, though, are actively stifling market rate & “luxury” (which is really just at the top end of market rate) units from being constructed, primarily developments that would exist in place of empty lots.

You hit the point previous as well that people are going to continue moving back into the city, and yes, it’s usually people with money. Shouldn’t the goal be to flesh out units and housing that those folks will seek out, so as to not drive long time residents out of the neighborhood? I feel as though that’s the biggest issue with this discourse though, is that both sides of the argument just talk past each other, but both sides would like a similar outcome (given I don’t agree that socialized housing is the best solution to this problem as KCT does, but I digress)

The goal may not to be to displace residents but it's often the reality. Without sounding unsympathetic with those displaced, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing - particularly in Kansas City. The reality for Kansas City is that during the 1960's, people who had money moved out in mass leaving a large core of poverty and neighborhoods in disrepair behind. That also left Kansas City with an increasingly non-dense urban core since that time with only a turn around on a modest scale in the last 10 years or so. KC remains probably one of the least gentrified major cities in the US. It ultimately doesn't benefit the people that comprise KC tenants for the bulk of the urban core to remain a swath of low-income housing; it discourages investment which discourages jobs and wage growth, new investment in residential properties, density - just about everything that makes an urban core work. I understand their POV but their methods to achieve what they want are most likely going to be counter-productive in the long term. The point should be to bring some of the wealth that exists in the burbs back into KCMO so that people there can benefit from better wages much closer to their home.

Even if building publicly funded affordable housing is the answer, the city would be in a much better place to accomplish this with a healthier economy and tax base. Bringing people and wealth back into the core is not a bad thing.