Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
- Sirius_Blue
- Pad site
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
And now the Star is reporting KC Tenants' Google Doc survey where people self-reported their rent (and other housing costs) as fact. https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/a ... 13831.html
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
With the Lux development going forward without an affordable component, KC Tenants has prevented the addition of over 100 new or rehabilitated affordable apartments at Lux and Armour/Main.
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
They were told that is what would happen. All new construction would just be market rate. It's hilarious.
- Sirius_Blue
- Pad site
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Bunch is now on record as supporting the Katz redevelopment. And KC Tenants is still playing the victim like the big bad church did it out of spite.
The KCUR article also claimed the church bought it in 2019. They did not. They bought it in 2011 I believe.
The KCUR article also claimed the church bought it in 2019. They did not. They bought it in 2011 I believe.
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
It might have been mentioned here, but has anyone noticed all the paper signs they placed on street lights down Armour? They're complaining that rent went up 26% last year and "that ain't right". The signs encourage people to contact them and report their findings. All I could think about while seeing those is how pathetic they are. They're oblivious to the simple concept of supply and demand. Them getting some projects canceled, only to have them come back as market rate with no affordable units (like the Lux one so far) is the slap in the face they need.
Their relevance is starting to fade.
Their relevance is starting to fade.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
All signage is illegal and you are free to remove it.Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 7:47 pm It might have been mentioned here, but has anyone noticed all the paper signs they placed on street lights down Armour? They're complaining that rent went up 26% last year and "that ain't right". The signs encourage people to contact them and report their findings. All I could think about while seeing those is how pathetic they are. They're oblivious to the simple concept of supply and demand. Them getting some projects canceled, only to have them come back as market rate with no affordable units (like the Lux one so far) is the slap in the face they need.
Their relevance is starting to fade.
- Anthony_Hugo98
- Valencia Place
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
- Location: Overland Park, KS
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Don’t tempt me with a good time
- Chris Stritzel
- Penntower
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:27 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
A good time would be spamming their QR code
- FlippantCitizen
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:29 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Agreed. Anecdotally, whereas a year ago I was hearing a lot of misinformed talk about the incentive process and some blind embrace of their org, now I'm hearing a lot more realistic takes from some of the same people. All they achieved was blocking housing units from coming onto the market and this was noticed. I know some reasonable people who generally hate big developers and toss around the gentrification word a lot, they've had their ears open more lately to the supply/demand driven, anti-Nimby, approach I've always advocated for. Also hearing more general negativity on KC tenants as of late.
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
A local company I used to work for had this as a cultural mantra: "Those who oppose, must propose." It is not enough merely to stand in the way of an idea, that's a half thought. You have to propose a decent workable alternative.
Pay attention to politics for any length of time and you'll quickly become aware of a corollary: Counterfeit proposals don't count. I can propose that we fix all local roads permanently for $1 but without making abundantly clear how my idea is grounded in reality, I should be ignored.
To this day I haven't seen any true proposal from KC Tenants, just opposition to others' projects. Am I missing anything? Do they have actually some workable ideas that just aren't getting media coverage?
Pay attention to politics for any length of time and you'll quickly become aware of a corollary: Counterfeit proposals don't count. I can propose that we fix all local roads permanently for $1 but without making abundantly clear how my idea is grounded in reality, I should be ignored.
To this day I haven't seen any true proposal from KC Tenants, just opposition to others' projects. Am I missing anything? Do they have actually some workable ideas that just aren't getting media coverage?
- Cratedigger
- Valencia Place
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:32 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LaxUMF ... XkwL4/viewHalcyonKC wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:44 am A local company I used to work for had this as a cultural mantra: "Those who oppose, must propose." It is not enough merely to stand in the way of an idea, that's a half thought. You have to propose a decent workable alternative.
Pay attention to politics for any length of time and you'll quickly become aware of a corollary: Counterfeit proposals don't count. I can propose that we fix all local roads permanently for $1 but without making abundantly clear how my idea is grounded in reality, I should be ignored.
To this day I haven't seen any true proposal from KC Tenants, just opposition to others' projects. Am I missing anything? Do they have actually some workable ideas that just aren't getting media coverage?
I think the above link is their proposed solution. To your point, I don't know how grounded it is in reality.
They want housing to be publicly funded and maintained by revenue generated from cutting KCPD's budget and "taxing the gentrifiers"
- Sirius_Blue
- Pad site
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Fun how they get to define who the "gentrifiers" are
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18215
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
The majority of structures in any city were constructed by developers at some point. Many now affordable old houses were built by real estate developers years ago. Only wealthier people can usually afford to build one-off houses on a site they choose.
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
I will gladly host a "spam party."Chris Stritzel wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:14 pmA good time would be spamming their QR code
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Is good to see they are losing traction. Seems the only notable loss at this point is MAC's Armour/Main proposal and would expect that will come back in another form as MAC has significant vested interest along the entire Armour stretch. Something will happen, maybe even something more formidable but they may wait until streetcar is up and running and/or economic uncertainties to settle down. Hope to see them grab the Burger King lot too.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
There are a few "big" projects I know of that where killed before they got announced because of what happened to Armour/Main proposal.earthling wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:40 am Is good to see they are losing traction. Seems the only notable loss at this point is MAC's Armour/Main proposal and would expect that will come back in another form as MAC has significant vested interest along the entire Armour stretch. Something will happen, maybe even something more formidable but they may wait until streetcar is up and running and/or economic uncertainties to settle down. Hope to see them grab the Burger King lot too.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
^Which ones and is it known that KC Tenants was the primary reason. There are many projects proposed in any given city that don't make it to a construction start or delayed for years as there are many many factors in play. Demand is decreasing in many markets for one.
Either way, it appears KCT is losing traction and City is working towards being more developer friendly, at least relatively more.
And Armour/Main is such a prime location that something will eventually happen by the time streetcar is running or so.
Either way, it appears KCT is losing traction and City is working towards being more developer friendly, at least relatively more.
And Armour/Main is such a prime location that something will eventually happen by the time streetcar is running or so.
Last edited by earthling on Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
- normalthings
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8018
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Yes, these are ones where the developers told me KCT's rise and Mainland failing stopped them in their tracks. Not announced so I can't share.earthling wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 11:07 am ^Which ones and is it known that KC Tenants was the primary reason. There are many projects proposed in any given city that don't make it to a construction start or delayed for years as there are many many factors in play.
Either way, it appears KCT is losing traction and City is working towards being more developer friendly, at least relatively more.
And Armour/Main is such a prime location that something will eventually happen by the time streetcar is running or so.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 8519
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Location: milky way, orion arm
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Demand also appears to be diminishing some so could actually be the higher factor but KCT is indeed a problem so some would give that as the primary reason even though probably not. Keep in mind there are typically 25K+ units proposed at any given time in KC metro but only about 4K-6K or so turn into a construction start per year even when great incentives available.
In many markets starts are going down a bit as demand cuts back in addition to all the other economic/labor/supply chain issues.
Also MAC had an ask that raised eyebrows with even those wanting more favorable incentives.
In many markets starts are going down a bit as demand cuts back in addition to all the other economic/labor/supply chain issues.
Also MAC had an ask that raised eyebrows with even those wanting more favorable incentives.
Re: Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?
Cratedigger wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:57 amhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1LaxUMF ... XkwL4/viewHalcyonKC wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:44 am A local company I used to work for had this as a cultural mantra: "Those who oppose, must propose." It is not enough merely to stand in the way of an idea, that's a half thought. You have to propose a decent workable alternative.
Pay attention to politics for any length of time and you'll quickly become aware of a corollary: Counterfeit proposals don't count. I can propose that we fix all local roads permanently for $1 but without making abundantly clear how my idea is grounded in reality, I should be ignored.
To this day I haven't seen any true proposal from KC Tenants, just opposition to others' projects. Am I missing anything? Do they have actually some workable ideas that just aren't getting media coverage?
I think the above link is their proposed solution. To your point, I don't know how grounded it is in reality.
They want housing to be publicly funded and maintained by revenue generated from cutting KCPD's budget and "taxing the gentrifiers"
Just noticed this.
Their KC Tenants propaganda is steeped with "BLM" reference. The fist-in-the-air imagery used repetitively.
After the fall of BLM (donations directed to Los Angeles upper-bracket real estate, "defund police" baloney, violence, undisputed links to Marxist doctrine), clearly KC Tenants would be well served to employ a marketing strategy which doesn't alienate the masses.
Their advert is speaking directly to the violent Marxist continent within KC.
Good. KC Tenants is a group of zeros. Let them lose the last thread of public support they enjoy.