Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

While everyone was sleeping KCT infiltrated several important boards and commissions including the LCRA, EDC, BZA/ZBOA, and more.

Source?

[TheLastGentleman]

While everyone was sleeping KCT infiltrated several important boards and commissions including the LCRA, EDC, BZA/ZBOA, and more.

Source?

His mind

[im2kull]

While everyone was sleeping KCT infiltrated several important boards and commissions including the LCRA, EDC, BZA/ZBOA, and more.

Source?

https://clerk.kcmo.gov/Calendar.aspx
https://kansascity.granicus.com/boards/ ... c7e86bf335
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... HWxeA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JazHays/status/1756 ... sRBwQ&s=19
https://x.com/Ryana4KC

Browse around and see for yourself. The board member rosters are public. If you thought the anti-development sentiment was already bad, it looks like it's about to get much, much worse.

Also, just to clarify: Per KC Tenants webpage and mission statements, they are not interested in affordable housing. They are only interested in *social housing*. Here's an excellent comment about that from one of their newly empowered activists that is now serving on the LCRA:
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... 0VdsA&s=19

[Belvidere]

While everyone was sleeping KCT infiltrated several important boards and commissions including the LCRA, EDC, BZA/ZBOA, and more.

Source?

https://clerk.kcmo.gov/Calendar.aspx
https://kansascity.granicus.com/boards/ ... c7e86bf335
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... HWxeA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JazHays/status/1756 ... sRBwQ&s=19
https://x.com/Ryana4KC

Browse around and see for yourself. The board member rosters are public. If you thought the anti-development sentiment was already bad, it looks like it's about to get much, much worse.

Also, just to clarify: Per KC Tenants webpage and mission statements, they are not interested in affordable housing. They are only interested in *social housing*. Here's an excellent comment about that from one of their newly empowered activists that is now serving on the LCRA:
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... 0VdsA&s=19

I don't mind this in theory. The problem with our current model of public housing is that it's very broken. It's underfunded. They sometimes build cheaply and don't maintain it well or manage it well. If you want to talk about a new model of social housing that has higher standards, and a different approach, I'm interested.

[im2kull]

Source?

https://clerk.kcmo.gov/Calendar.aspx
https://kansascity.granicus.com/boards/ ... c7e86bf335
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... HWxeA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JazHays/status/1756 ... sRBwQ&s=19
https://x.com/Ryana4KC

Browse around and see for yourself. The board member rosters are public. If you thought the anti-development sentiment was already bad, it looks like it's about to get much, much worse.

Also, just to clarify: Per KC Tenants webpage and mission statements, they are not interested in affordable housing. They are only interested in *social housing*. Here's an excellent comment about that from one of their newly empowered activists that is now serving on the LCRA:
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... 0VdsA&s=19

I don't mind this in theory. The problem with our current model of public housing is that it's very broken. It's underfunded. They sometimes build cheaply and don't maintain it well or manage it well. If you want to talk about a new model of social housing that has higher standards, and a different approach, I'm interested.

I think you've fallen prey to a common misconception. KCT isn't pushing for social housing in addition to normal housing. They want "social housing" ONLY. No landlords, no apartment owners, no private homes, etc. They want everyone housed in social housing, whether that's your idea of a home or not.

Are you saying you're OK with that?

[Highlander]

Source?

https://clerk.kcmo.gov/Calendar.aspx
https://kansascity.granicus.com/boards/ ... c7e86bf335
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... HWxeA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JazHays/status/1756 ... sRBwQ&s=19
https://x.com/Ryana4KC

Browse around and see for yourself. The board member rosters are public. If you thought the anti-development sentiment was already bad, it looks like it's about to get much, much worse.

Also, just to clarify: Per KC Tenants webpage and mission statements, they are not interested in affordable housing. They are only interested in *social housing*. Here's an excellent comment about that from one of their newly empowered activists that is now serving on the LCRA:
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... 0VdsA&s=19

I don't mind this in theory. The problem with our current model of public housing is that it's very broken. It's underfunded. They sometimes build cheaply and don't maintain it well or manage it well. If you want to talk about a new model of social housing that has higher standards, and a different approach, I'm interested.

Kansas City will not achieve anything meaningful in social housing as long as the city struggles financially. The only way to change that situation is to bring industry, business and wealth back into the city but that is less likely to happen if the tools available to the city to accomplish that are watered down or removed completely. The overwhelming choice of business in the metro today is in the suburb and the residents, particularly the residents with wealth, choose the same course and will continue to do so as Kansas City maintains its passive aggressive approach to business developments and strong resistance to gentrification continues. KC Tenant's policies work against their goals and are extremely short sighted - they are not making the city a better place for anyone right now.

[Belvidere]

https://clerk.kcmo.gov/Calendar.aspx
https://kansascity.granicus.com/boards/ ... c7e86bf335
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... HWxeA&s=19
https://twitter.com/JazHays/status/1756 ... sRBwQ&s=19
https://x.com/Ryana4KC

Browse around and see for yourself. The board member rosters are public. If you thought the anti-development sentiment was already bad, it looks like it's about to get much, much worse.

Also, just to clarify: Per KC Tenants webpage and mission statements, they are not interested in affordable housing. They are only interested in *social housing*. Here's an excellent comment about that from one of their newly empowered activists that is now serving on the LCRA:
https://twitter.com/rjaaaaaaaaa/status/ ... 0VdsA&s=19

I don't mind this in theory. The problem with our current model of public housing is that it's very broken. It's underfunded. They sometimes build cheaply and don't maintain it well or manage it well. If you want to talk about a new model of social housing that has higher standards, and a different approach, I'm interested.

Kansas City will not achieve anything meaningful in social housing as long as the city struggles financially. The only way to change that situation is to bring industry, business and wealth back into the city but that is less likely to happen if the tools available to the city to accomplish that are watered down or removed completely. The overwhelming choice of business in the metro today is in the suburb and the residents, particularly the residents with wealth, choose the same course and will continue to do so as Kansas City maintains its passive aggressive approach to business developments and strong resistance to gentrification continues. KC Tenant's policies work against their goals and are extremely short sighted - they are not making the city a better place for anyone right now.

Half agree.

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times. For example, I don't think discrimination is the worst part about the voucher system. The worst part is about the voucher system is it's poorly run and underfunded. We have apartments in the neighborhood that I believe are under a system called section 42 based on income and that seems to work pretty well. The public housing, unfortunately, is deteriorating.

Meaningful social housing probably will never happen at a city level. It will probably only happen with Federal funding. We need a housing bill like we have an infrastructure bill. I also don't see it as mutually exclusive. I don't particularly like enclaves of anything, I like things that are mixed together. I would like to see a completely new model. That's a conversation worth having.

A gentrification is a dicey subject because people don't typically mean the same thing by it. I certainly want positive investment in a disinvested area. We could couple that with anti displacement strategies.

When I spoke to a developer of affordable housing, his struggle was that he was now competing with all developers to build affordable units. It would have been better to focus the incentives on developers who really work in this space and build them up, and let everyone else do what they do best. The goal was to get the number of units of affordable housing increased. We probably could have done that a lot faster if we had focused incentives on the people who know how to work in that space.

[im2kull]

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times.

The problem is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what KC Tenants goals are and the background of its establishment.

[Belvidere]

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times.

The problem is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what KC Tenants goals are and the background of its establishment.

I can read the materials of related groups and People's Action. I understand what their vision is. I can also look around my community and see significant issues that the market won't solve.

[beautyfromashes]

I won't take KC Tenants seriously until they start actually fighting against the inequality in this metro instead of focusing their efforts on the poorest in the core that already carry a much larger burden to take care of the mentally ill, homeless, and those in poverty. If they want equity, protest in Leawood or other megarich communities that do zero to care for the less fortunate. Until then, it's all lip service and keeping the oppressed oppressed.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times.

The problem is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what KC Tenants goals are and the background of its establishment.

I can read the materials of related groups and People's Action. I understand what their vision is. I can also look around my community and see significant issues that the market won't solve.

There’s a difference between solving a problem that the market cant/wont, and preventing the market from existing or trying to tie the hands of said market in every way possible.

[Belvidere]

The problem is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what KC Tenants goals are and the background of its establishment.

I can read the materials of related groups and People's Action. I understand what their vision is. I can also look around my community and see significant issues that the market won't solve.

There’s a difference between solving a problem that the market cant/wont, and preventing the market from existing or trying to tie the hands of said market in every way possible.

They can try, I guess, but it's up to electeds, yes? There are many issues at play and developers were scared off doing business in KC before KCT showed up. The last group of projects I got to see were worried about lending costs, infrastructure, labor expense, fire department requirements, energy code, etc. I understand your frustration.

[Highlander]

I don't mind this in theory. The problem with our current model of public housing is that it's very broken. It's underfunded. They sometimes build cheaply and don't maintain it well or manage it well. If you want to talk about a new model of social housing that has higher standards, and a different approach, I'm interested.

Kansas City will not achieve anything meaningful in social housing as long as the city struggles financially. The only way to change that situation is to bring industry, business and wealth back into the city but that is less likely to happen if the tools available to the city to accomplish that are watered down or removed completely. The overwhelming choice of business in the metro today is in the suburb and the residents, particularly the residents with wealth, choose the same course and will continue to do so as Kansas City maintains its passive aggressive approach to business developments and strong resistance to gentrification continues. KC Tenant's policies work against their goals and are extremely short sighted - they are not making the city a better place for anyone right now.

Half agree.

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times. For example, I don't think discrimination is the worst part about the voucher system. The worst part is about the voucher system is it's poorly run and underfunded. We have apartments in the neighborhood that I believe are under a system called section 42 based on income and that seems to work pretty well. The public housing, unfortunately, is deteriorating.

Meaningful social housing probably will never happen at a city level. It will probably only happen with Federal funding. We need a housing bill like we have an infrastructure bill. I also don't see it as mutually exclusive. I don't particularly like enclaves of anything, I like things that are mixed together. I would like to see a completely new model. That's a conversation worth having.

A gentrification is a dicey subject because people don't typically mean the same thing by it. I certainly want positive investment in a disinvested area. We could couple that with anti displacement strategies.

When I spoke to a developer of affordable housing, his struggle was that he was now competing with all developers to build affordable units. It would have been better to focus the incentives on developers who really work in this space and build them up, and let everyone else do what they do best. The goal was to get the number of units of affordable housing increased. We probably could have done that a lot faster if we had focused incentives on the people who know how to work in that space.

My concern is far more fundamental than just social housing or how we get there. First, we have an income disparity in this country that worsens by the day and that isn't going to be addressed locally. It's fundamental to our economic system. We could all have the advanced degrees in the most practical vocations and it would change nothing. So that part of the equation needs to be removed from what Kansas City can do to address housing equality; it's not in KC's power to impact.

What Kansas City cannot and should not do is voluntarily elect to become even poorer than it already is or even accept the status quo. We think we've made progress but this city was in relative terms considerably better off throughout most of the 60's than it is now. When I was a child, we lived in a mixed middle class neighborhood along Swope Parkway. Much more of KC south of the river (and east of the Blue River) was economically middle class than it is now. Gentrification is a dirty word but it absolutely has to happen and on a pretty large scale for KC to prosper and even for KC tenants to accomplish anything close to what they want. Otherwise, they are just going to be trying to extract funds that do not exist from a turnip. And counting on federal funds that are not coming isn't going to work. Trump will most likely win in 2024 so there's four years before the subject can even be broached again.

Take a look at Google Maps. Of the close in burbs and urban core that form a contiguous community around downtown KC (basically south of the Missouri River, east of I35 and west of the Blue River), 90% of the middle and upper class areas are in Kansas. Much of the big wealth in the metro is even now displaced further south of I435 in Kansas and they brought the business world with them. That's why the Plaza suffers. It's not solely an ownership issue. Kansas City should be looking at ways to bring that wealth back into the city. It absolutely benefits everyone in the city including KC Tenants even though there may be painful moments in the process. That's also why Kansas City has the great bones that it does have, it was a relatively wealthy city in its early days.

[Belvidere]

Kansas City will not achieve anything meaningful in social housing as long as the city struggles financially. The only way to change that situation is to bring industry, business and wealth back into the city but that is less likely to happen if the tools available to the city to accomplish that are watered down or removed completely. The overwhelming choice of business in the metro today is in the suburb and the residents, particularly the residents with wealth, choose the same course and will continue to do so as Kansas City maintains its passive aggressive approach to business developments and strong resistance to gentrification continues. KC Tenant's policies work against their goals and are extremely short sighted - they are not making the city a better place for anyone right now.

Half agree.

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times. For example, I don't think discrimination is the worst part about the voucher system. The worst part is about the voucher system is it's poorly run and underfunded. We have apartments in the neighborhood that I believe are under a system called section 42 based on income and that seems to work pretty well. The public housing, unfortunately, is deteriorating.

Meaningful social housing probably will never happen at a city level. It will probably only happen with Federal funding. We need a housing bill like we have an infrastructure bill. I also don't see it as mutually exclusive. I don't particularly like enclaves of anything, I like things that are mixed together. I would like to see a completely new model. That's a conversation worth having.

A gentrification is a dicey subject because people don't typically mean the same thing by it. I certainly want positive investment in a disinvested area. We could couple that with anti displacement strategies.

When I spoke to a developer of affordable housing, his struggle was that he was now competing with all developers to build affordable units. It would have been better to focus the incentives on developers who really work in this space and build them up, and let everyone else do what they do best. The goal was to get the number of units of affordable housing increased. We probably could have done that a lot faster if we had focused incentives on the people who know how to work in that space.

My concern is far more fundamental than just social housing or how we get there. First, we have an income disparity in this country that worsens by the day and that isn't going to be addressed locally. It's fundamental to our economic system. We could all have the advanced degrees in the most practical vocations and it would change nothing. So that part of the equation needs to be removed from what Kansas City can do to address housing equality; it's not in KC's power to impact.

What Kansas City cannot and should not do is voluntarily elect to become even poorer than it already is or even accept the status quo. We think we've made progress but this city was in relative terms considerably better off throughout most of the 60's than it is now. When I was a child, we lived in a mixed middle class neighborhood along Swope Parkway. Much more of KC south of the river (and east of the Blue River) was economically middle class than it is now. Gentrification is a dirty word but it absolutely has to happen and on a pretty large scale for KC to prosper and even for KC tenants to accomplish anything close to what they want. Otherwise, they are just going to be trying to extract funds that do not exist from a turnip. And counting on federal funds that are not coming isn't going to work. Trump will most likely win in 2024 so there's four years before the subject can even be broached again.

Take a look at Google Maps. Of the close in burbs and urban core that form a contiguous community around downtown KC (basically south of the Missouri River, east of I35 and west of the Blue River), 90% of the middle and upper class areas are in Kansas. Much of the big wealth in the metro is even now displaced further south of I435 in Kansas and they brought the business world with them. That's why the Plaza suffers. It's not solely an ownership issue. Kansas City should be looking at ways to bring that wealth back into the city. It absolutely benefits everyone in the city including KC Tenants even though there may be painful moments in the process. That's also why Kansas City has the great bones that it does have, it was a relatively wealthy city in its early days.

I think you can do both and it's healthy to do both.

For example, I would like to take our vacant buildings and land trust them for permanently affordable housing. I would like our public housing to be a lot better. That can coexist with fancy townhomes.

I would like to understand why this area on the Missouri side is not building, and I can't fault KCT. The problem is too broad. Developers complain more about the city and the slowness. Time is money and they get frustrated.

I wonder if the real issue is no longer schools, but crime and lack of conveniences like a daycare. As an example, we've really enjoyed the Christmas lights on Cliff Drive, but we're probably going to lose them because there's too much vandalism. We can't seem to catch a break.

There's no question that life is harder here and when I visit my sister in Johnson County, she does not have similar worries and stresses.

The Plaza was thriving when I was a kid because they had two movie theaters and the McDonald's and a comic book store. A grocery store and mom and pop businesses. Coupled with online shopping, I think that's the problem. Also, remember that Overland Park has places like Town Center. So if you're somebody wealthy in Leawood, you don't have to come to the Plaza. Actually think they'd be better served if they downscaled a little bit and had broader appeal, and welcomed a wider group of people.

People would probably go if it had quirky boutiques that you can't find anywhere else. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

[dukuboy1]

Kansas City will not achieve anything meaningful in social housing as long as the city struggles financially. The only way to change that situation is to bring industry, business and wealth back into the city but that is less likely to happen if the tools available to the city to accomplish that are watered down or removed completely. The overwhelming choice of business in the metro today is in the suburb and the residents, particularly the residents with wealth, choose the same course and will continue to do so as Kansas City maintains its passive aggressive approach to business developments and strong resistance to gentrification continues. KC Tenant's policies work against their goals and are extremely short sighted - they are not making the city a better place for anyone right now.

Half agree.

I like their goals and I am frustrated with their solutions at times. For example, I don't think discrimination is the worst part about the voucher system. The worst part is about the voucher system is it's poorly run and underfunded. We have apartments in the neighborhood that I believe are under a system called section 42 based on income and that seems to work pretty well. The public housing, unfortunately, is deteriorating.

Meaningful social housing probably will never happen at a city level. It will probably only happen with Federal funding. We need a housing bill like we have an infrastructure bill. I also don't see it as mutually exclusive. I don't particularly like enclaves of anything, I like things that are mixed together. I would like to see a completely new model. That's a conversation worth having.

A gentrification is a dicey subject because people don't typically mean the same thing by it. I certainly want positive investment in a disinvested area. We could couple that with anti displacement strategies.

When I spoke to a developer of affordable housing, his struggle was that he was now competing with all developers to build affordable units. It would have been better to focus the incentives on developers who really work in this space and build them up, and let everyone else do what they do best. The goal was to get the number of units of affordable housing increased. We probably could have done that a lot faster if we had focused incentives on the people who know how to work in that space.

My concern is far more fundamental than just social housing or how we get there. First, we have an income disparity in this country that worsens by the day and that isn't going to be addressed locally. It's fundamental to our economic system. We could all have the advanced degrees in the most practical vocations and it would change nothing. So that part of the equation needs to be removed from what Kansas City can do to address housing equality; it's not in KC's power to impact.

What Kansas City cannot and should not do is voluntarily elect to become even poorer than it already is or even accept the status quo. We think we've made progress but this city was in relative terms considerably better off throughout most of the 60's than it is now. When I was a child, we lived in a mixed middle class neighborhood along Swope Parkway. Much more of KC south of the river (and east of the Blue River) was economically middle class than it is now. Gentrification is a dirty word but it absolutely has to happen and on a pretty large scale for KC to prosper and even for KC tenants to accomplish anything close to what they want. Otherwise, they are just going to be trying to extract funds that do not exist from a turnip. And counting on federal funds that are not coming isn't going to work. Trump will most likely win in 2024 so there's four years before the subject can even be broached again.

Take a look at Google Maps. Of the close in burbs and urban core that form a contiguous community around downtown KC (basically south of the Missouri River, east of I35 and west of the Blue River), 90% of the middle and upper class areas are in Kansas. Much of the big wealth in the metro is even now displaced further south of I435 in Kansas and they brought the business world with them. That's why the Plaza suffers. It's not solely an ownership issue. Kansas City should be looking at ways to bring that wealth back into the city. It absolutely benefits everyone in the city including KC Tenants even though there may be painful moments in the process. That's also why Kansas City has the great bones that it does have, it was a relatively wealthy city in its early days.

Agreed KC should look at ways to bring back the wealth into KC. First would be to get a major employer or several small employers to plant HQ roots in Downtown or within the Downtown to Crown Center area. Bring those people to the area to work & live. Obviously crime is an issue, as are amenities & infrastructure updates. But it's a catch 22, because you have to have the residents to build the tax base to keep on top of those things. Big issue is still education, i.e. public schools. That is the number 1 reason wealth, middle to upper middle class wealth leaves KC for the burbs is the schools, followed by lower crime rates. Wealthy folks still live in KCMO, look at Brookside, Ward Pkwy, etc. But they have enough wealth to send their kids to Private Schools or pay for a really nice charter. Until those are improved we are kind of stuck.

Luckily, KCMO has an ace up their sleeve in the Northland. It is suburban, good schools and the City of KC is the largest land mass in the Northland (maybe Liberty is bigger but I'm not sure). KCMO can definitely grow their revenues by having a thriving suburb up North. Plus if they had the employers downtown it would be nice as it is very easy to reach downtown from the Northland, easier I would say than any other suburb in the Metro. Plus more employers downtown would mean an even larger population of current downtown residents may end up working in downtown.

[herrfrank]

Actually it is in Kansas and suburban interests to have a healthy KCMO. And the employment areas of KCMO are in good shape compared to peer cities -- the serious crime problems are infrequent downtown or in the immediate Plaza area. Unfortunately KC appears to have largely missed the last 20 years of run-up in tech jobs. KC has some, but nowhere near Austin or Seattle or even Denver. Another 50,000 six-figure-jobs downtown would be transformative.

In terms of stable growth, the big impediment as mentioned upthread, remains the atrocious public schools. I've argued for years that the KCMOSD should break up into neighborhood "districts" based on one or two high schools per district. Brookside and the South Plaza area could easily produce and would patronize a high-performing set of schools. Once that happens, I think the surrounding areas would get better too, and the city-wide schooling numbers would improve.

[im2kull]

I would like to understand why this area on the Missouri side is not building, and I can't fault KCT. The problem is too broad. Developers complain more about the city and the slowness. Time is money and they get frustrated.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but on this you are dead wrong. KCT has singlehandedly slowed, stalled, and cancelled thousands of units of housing that was steadily moving forward until becoming a target of theirs. They are the sole reason for these developments being cancelled. The boards deciding the fate of these developments would not have moved against them if it wasn't for pressure, and infiltration, from KCT. This is why I brought up their new positions of authority on additional decision making boards as well, a few posts ago. The developments in question had overcome the other hurdles you speak to, and were fouled by KCT.

That's my biggest grip with KCT. Their goal is true social housing, which most folks don't seem to get. Everyone casts them into this "pro-affordable housing" group, when really.. they want social housing.. not affordable housing. To get there they will deride all development. Because in our country, the only way to get true social housing (a world in which there is no alternative) is to completely wreck and fail our existing housing stocks.

Gentrification is a dirty word but it absolutely has to happen and on a pretty large scale for KC to prosper and even for KC tenants to accomplish anything close to what they want. Otherwise, they are just going to be trying to extract funds that do not exist from a turnip. And counting on federal funds that are not coming isn't going to work.

What a lot of folks don't seem to understand is simply this: Today's luxury housing, is tomorrow affordable housing.

[Belvidere]

I would like to understand why this area on the Missouri side is not building, and I can't fault KCT. The problem is too broad. Developers complain more about the city and the slowness. Time is money and they get frustrated.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but on this you are dead wrong. KCT has singlehandedly slowed, stalled, and cancelled thousands of units of housing that was steadily moving forward until becoming a target of theirs. They are the sole reason for these developments being cancelled. The boards deciding the fate of these developments would not have moved against them if it wasn't for pressure, and infiltration, from KCT. This is why I brought up their new positions of authority on additional decision making boards as well, a few posts ago. The developments in question had overcome the other hurdles you speak to, and were fouled by KCT.

That's my biggest grip with KCT. Their goal is true social housing, which most folks don't seem to get. Everyone casts them into this "pro-affordable housing" group, when really.. they want social housing.. not affordable housing. To get there they will deride all development. Because in our country, the only way to get true social housing (a world in which there is no alternative) is to completely wreck and fail our existing housing stocks.

Gentrification is a dirty word but it absolutely has to happen and on a pretty large scale for KC to prosper and even for KC tenants to accomplish anything close to what they want. Otherwise, they are just going to be trying to extract funds that do not exist from a turnip. And counting on federal funds that are not coming isn't going to work.

What a lot of folks don't seem to understand is simply this: Today's luxury housing, is tomorrow affordable housing.

Could be the case. I'm not privy to what happens on all the boards. The last developer I spoke with said that he thought the tax abatement changes were the worst thing and that requiring a 20% set aside for affordable units killed too many projects. They can't get it to pencil out. Developers who want to build affordable units have a specific expertise to make those projects work. It's a specialized field.

My area has a lot of public housing and I wish I had better news. I don't know if it's our Housing Authority or public housing in general, but it's not easy to live there. The residents in general are very nice and they deserve better.

KCT may have some kind of strategy, but a city like Kansas City is never going to be able to survive on social housing alone. They will never have the money. Our voucher system doesn't pay enough and it's highly inefficient.

I don't mind the conversations they bring up. I don't even mind strident advocacy. I just want solutions that actually work.

[TheLastGentleman]

Are other developed countries like this? Where if a city isn’t just totally rockin economically it just stops being able to function?

KC isn’t even close to the worst example of this; how many bankrupt Detroits does the rest of the first world have?

[herrfrank]

^ If by "stops being able to function" you mean massive multi-unit housing production, then the answer is yes, but generally not in socially homogenous countries. The UK famously has this problem. Australia has this problem. Some is rightwing NIMBY-ism, some is leftwing anti-gentrification posturing.

Also, "metro KC" functions fine. Just the city core doesn't function well (and only recently) in terms of multi-unit housing conversion and creation. And KC (city) has long been on the edge financially -- the budget simply does not keep up with expenses.

Does KC Tenants object to housing developments in the Northland part of KC? I'm thinking of "suburban complex" housing -- 100- to 300- units, townhouse or apartments, 50-year lifespan -- the kind you see near highway offramps.