KCRag Forum

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:21 pm I really think an environmental argument needs to be made as well

I was surprised to see Sunrise KC arguing against the Armour development

I’m not sure they even know what they believe in.

The easiest way to explain denser development is paying for things the City can't afford now: more police officers, sidewalks, potholes, snow removal, and cleaning up dumping.

The reason things don't get done now is that the City doesn't have enough money coming in because of all the surface parking and vacant lots, and its development patterns in the new parts of the City cost more revenue than they bring in.

Then say Rizzo's stance will not solve these problems no matter what he promises.

You have to elect people that frame it that way though.

You can say we’re going to get more rich people paying for shit or you can say look at all these tax incentives we’re giving out to the rich.

I’ve been having this conversation, including with many people on this forum, and it’s been interesting but a struggle.

I have always thought the argument that in the last 70 years(ish) KCMO has grown its land area ~7 times while its population has stayed flat (or decreased really, until recently) is pretty powerful. But also, maybe some might argue that's too in the weeds? To me it seems pretty straightforward for a person to understand that we have the same population but we're taking care of 7x the infrastructure, etc.

smh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:04 am I have always thought the argument that in the last 70 years(ish) KCMO has grown its land area ~7 times while its population has stayed flat (or decreased really, until recently) is pretty powerful. But also, maybe some might argue that's too in the weeds? To me it seems pretty straightforward for a person to understand that we have the same population but we're taking care of 7x the infrastructure, etc.

What's the alternative? Same land area with one 7th the population? I don't know if that's the case.

shinatoo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:09 am

smh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:04 am I have always thought the argument that in the last 70 years(ish) KCMO has grown its land area ~7 times while its population has stayed flat (or decreased really, until recently) is pretty powerful. But also, maybe some might argue that's too in the weeds? To me it seems pretty straightforward for a person to understand that we have the same population but we're taking care of 7x the infrastructure, etc.

What's the alternative? Same land area with one 7th the population? I don't know if that's the case.

Isn't that effectively what we have? I'm not suggesting we somehow turn the clock back, I'm just saying it is a useful explanation for why everything is shit. And a potentially useful illustration for why adding density in the urban core is a good step towards solving the issue of poor infrastructure.

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:17 pm

Stbikeskc wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:03 pm Rizzo went to prison for a check kiting scheme in the 1990's, is out of touch with most of the 4th district, is pro-cop, pro-car, pro-parking. He's backed by some serious racist, and old school establishment that want to take this city back, no forward, not to mention he claims to be a Northland Advocate
Henry has deep ties in the Northland and has been a long-time advocate for residents north of the river, but only a small part of the district he is running for is north of the river. He would be better suited running for 1st or 2nd districts, not 4th.

Yup this is my thought on Rizzo as well. Glad to hear he's responding to you, but not someone I personally support

Also, hey ST! Welcome to the rag. Big fan of yours on Twitter

Cheers, thanks. I appreciate that!

Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:15 pm
I understand, I just wish Bunch was as responsive as his counterparts in St. Louis. If I have a question about something, they’d get back to me within a day. Bunch is hit or miss. I’m not opposed to Bunch and I’d be fine if he wins again because he’s done good things and pushed the urbanist cause forward even if I disagree with him on some issues. But he needs to work on communication and take a more aggressive stance on urbanist issues. I know what Rizzo stands for and I can’t lie, I disagree with his positions on things (no different than Bunch), but I can at least have a chat with Rizzo.

Bunch holds open public meetups all the time, lately been hosing them at a coffee show in Midtown. He's pretty responsive on twitter, gives out his phone number regularly. Also need to remember, he has three young kids which is pretty rage for politics which tends to be older people with kids already out of the house, so maybe it takes a day or two to follow up.

"UPDATE Council committee endorses original City Harvest plan by 3-2 vote, replaces existing 160 public parking spaces at site; requires 45 affordable units at 70% AMI. Previous plan had 15 more affordable units and less public parking."

https://twitter.com/kckansascity/status ... 29475?s=20

Affordable car housing wins again

Parking > affordable housing. Where's KC Tenants now?

KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:06 am Affordable car housing wins again

I hope all of these newer parking garage podiums are at least being built with horizontally level floors to give a theoretical option for conversion to future living space. Not that I realistically expect that to ever happen.

kcjak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:08 am Parking > affordable housing. Where's KC Tenants now?

Living rent free in your brain

TheLastGentleman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:09 am

kcjak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:08 am Parking > affordable housing. Where's KC Tenants now?

Living rent free in your brain

Deflecting on what is a very valid criticism of the premier affordable housing advocacy group in this city, and their lack of vocality on this project, isn’t the own you think it is.

KCT should be the loudest ones in the conversation on this issue IMO. While some of their members have certainly opined, it would be better to have an organized group response by them to the NIMBYs who’s parking demands are what ruin project potential.

Did KCT even support the other plan, though? If not, I don't really know why you would expect them to bother responding to this. I realize they have become this board's favorite boogieman, but ultimately they're still a volunteer-driven organization with limited resources that can't be everywhere at once. Seems like kind of a weak gotcha to second guess how they choose to deploy those resources, especially if you aren't even aligned with them in the first place. The ones who should be the loudest voice in this conversation, who should be organizing a group response to it, are the ones who care most about it, such as, e.g., the people who have generated an 18 page and counting message board thread about it. Not sure why you all expect a group you ordinarily demonize to do your work for you.

Forget KC Tenants, I want to hear the arguments from people here that condone turning 'affordable housing' into parking. Did I read that right?

phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 pm Did KCT even support the other plan, though? If not, I don't really know why you would expect them to bother responding to this. I realize they have become this board's favorite boogieman, but ultimately they're still a volunteer-driven organization with limited resources that can't be everywhere at once. Seems like kind of a weak gotcha to second guess how they choose to deploy those resources, especially if you aren't even aligned with them in the first place. The ones who should be the loudest voice in this conversation, who should be organizing a group response to it, are the ones who care most about it, such as, e.g., the people who have generated an 18 page and counting message board thread about it. Not sure why you all expect a group you ordinarily demonize to do your work for you.

I don’t think anyone was saying that the expectation was that they should be the only ones up in arms about the response to this project, more so that no response from them, especially in regards to the exchange of affordable units for more parking, on the highest frequency transit line in the city, was a little strange.

I’ve been coming around more to KCT, especially after seeing their action through the winter in regards to the scumbag landlords who have buildings WITHOUT heat for an extended period of time.

As a caveat here though, I’ve been actively participating in an organization doing our best to support development in this city. It’s hard though when you’re a 20 something with a newborn, bills to pay, and the hearing for a project is at 1pm at City Hall.

I think we can all agree here though that NIMBYism for the sake of more parking spaces is the greatest cancer in this city, and we should unite against that common enemy.

"NIMBYism for the sake of more parking spaces" has always been a non-issue here. The parking lot was always going to convert to a nearly 400 space garage (more than double the current number). The only difference was that they were taking the public parking and giving it to one private company for the sole use of their tenants. The apartment building is still being built, it will still contain the same number of units as well as a percentage of units for low income. It will still be just as tall, and be just as disruptive for two years. The only difference is the public parking (which is owned by the City and collects money for the city), will not be sacrificed at the expense of other private businesses who rely on it. So NO, sorry Anthony_Hugo98, not everyone agrees with you.

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:20 pm

phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 pm Did KCT even support the other plan, though? If not, I don't really know why you would expect them to bother responding to this. I realize they have become this board's favorite boogieman, but ultimately they're still a volunteer-driven organization with limited resources that can't be everywhere at once. Seems like kind of a weak gotcha to second guess how they choose to deploy those resources, especially if you aren't even aligned with them in the first place. The ones who should be the loudest voice in this conversation, who should be organizing a group response to it, are the ones who care most about it, such as, e.g., the people who have generated an 18 page and counting message board thread about it. Not sure why you all expect a group you ordinarily demonize to do your work for you.

I think we can all agree here though that NIMBYism for the sake of more parking spaces is the greatest cancer in this city, and we should unite against that common enemy.

AMEN.

phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:30 pm Did KCT even support the other plan, though? If not, I don't really know why you would expect them to bother responding to this. I realize they have become this board's favorite boogieman, but ultimately they're still a volunteer-driven organization with limited resources that can't be everywhere at once.

The premier group in the city that is actively mobilizing and trying to create a political party around housing rights and housing affordability should definitely be up in arms that this development had to give up affordable units to cater to suburban parking interests.

But no, instead, KCT has chosen yet again to either remain silent while a project loses affordable units to those interests. I suppose I'd rather them be silent rather than outright try to kill the project and remove all affordability the project could have (see MAC's Armour & Main project).

I think their cause is great and I fully agree that there needs to be serious housing reform and a serious movement for tenants rights. I also agree that when projects are losing affordability they need to be focusing their efforts there too, rather than focusing on killing off developments they don't like, which actively harms their goal of safe affordable housing, and alienates developers from even sitting down and discussing the issues with them.

So yeah, they are a boogieman, but they also bring a good deal of the criticism on themselves.