Kansas City De-Annexations

[daGOAT]

Kansas City might be de-annexing 100 acres at the Belton Golf Course and it got me thinking. If you could trim some of that extra square mileage from the city, where would it be?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Kansas City might be de-annexing 100 acres at the Belton Golf Course and it got me thinking. If you could trim some of that extra square mileage from the city, where would it be?

Everything north of the river besides the airport

[kboish]

Can we trade Kc North for NKC?

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Can we trade Kc North for NKC?

This.

[AllThingsKC]

These signs have been popping up around the Northland:

[Anthony_Hugo98]

These signs have been popping up around the Northland:

I love how people don’t actually understand how nice they have it with DTKC subsidizing their parts of town. There is nowhere near enough tax income to support the infrastructure of these areas without KCMO. It would be a huge win for KCMO to stop supporting sprawl financially and infrastructurally though

[FlippantCitizen]

Probably nothing substantive will come out of this movement/debate. In regards to the pros and cons outlined by Anthony_Hugo98 I have very mixed feelings. The next 20 years will probably see a lot of growth in the Northland. I'm an urban core resident and on a additudinally anti suburban. But the fact of the matter is that we've already spent over half a century building out and supporting the sprawl that has come to exist in the Northland. Would it really be wise to cut it off now after all this time when it might just start to pay some dividend? The question of would KC be better off if we had never annexed all this land and should we deannex now are very different questions IMO.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

Probably nothing substantive will come out of this movement/debate. In regards to the pros and cons outlined by Anthony_Hugo98 I have very mixed feelings. The next 20 years will probably see a lot of growth in the Northland. I'm an urban core resident and on a additudinally anti suburban. But the fact of the matter is that we've already spent over half a century building out and supporting the sprawl that has come to exist in the Northland. Would it really be wise to cut it off now after all this time when it might just start to pay some dividend? The question of would KC be better off if we had never annexed all this land and should we deannex now are very different questions IMO.

Sunk cost fallacy honestly with this issue. Just because money has been spent doesn’t mean KC needs to continue with it. Not Just Bikes did a solid video on how poorly financially suburbs do over time, and how land value rarely every recoups the investment. You are right though, KC shouldn’t get rid of all of it, but de-annexing large swaths of undeveloped or underdeveloped land would go a long ways to improving public works and basic services for the rest of the city. The two biggest complaints by citizens of snow removal and pothole repair would be infinitely easier and cheaper for the city without maintaining areas 15 miles from downtown

[FlippantCitizen]

I'm with you. Some targeted de annexation would be an absolute good. But if it comes down to a complete secession of the Northland I really think that would spell a disaster for KC. The suburban ponzi scheme is real but there is an interplay of factors in this specific situation. If they go their own way they could very well build a debt fueled, unsustainable, web of suburban shit and still have it bleed us just like JoCo has.

[FlippantCitizen]

Regarding the original question of what should be de annexed.

https://imgur.com/a/CV8Jn80

I did a little doodle. Not fully certain of what we might be missing jobs/economic activity wise if these areas were cut off besides that Honeywell(?) plant down south. This just makes sense to me on geographical level and other than the aforementioned plant I'm unaware of significant economic activity in these areas. (Not saying it isn't there, I'm just largely ignorant of these areas.)

[earthling]

^With the momentum of data centers in KCMO city proper and tax generation long term, de-annexing might make less sense at this point. You wiped out Great Plains Tech Park and I think planned Google site too.

A decade+ ago I would've agreed but at this point, where KCMO has too much land to take care of, pursue data centers, warehousing, solar/wind farms and dense up existing residential with mixed use rather than sprawling out more. That is, don't allocate any more land to large swaths of single family homes - we have plenty existing areas that need to be refurbed. And for any new or rehabbed consumer commercial areas, pursue apts on top or tightly mixed within to create walkable areas and more sustainable to maintain. Something along those lines of new urbanism or whatever can sustain itself.

The important thing is to generate enough taxes per sq mile of land so that it can sustain itself - large swaths of single family homes is the least efficient and infrastructure often too costly to maintain. That is as well all know, the 30+ year cost to build/maintain power/sewer/water/road infrastructure for 4 300 unit hirise buildings at one intersection is far less than sprawling 1200 homes. Raise property taxes for those who choose to live in SFHs to cover cost of maintaining infrastructure, partly based on density of homes per sq mile. Give relative tax breaks to property owners who contribute to efficient dense living.

[Chris Stritzel]

If anything ever came of this, revert back to the original city limits. Might reduce tax money, but there would be less roads and land to take care of.

[earthling]

^Or utilize the land more efficiently so that each sq mile can be taken care of. Adjust property taxes appropriate to density and cost of maintaining that sq mile. KCMO is in a fairly unique situation to offer urbanity to exurban with cows. Make the most of each inch.

Though one advantage to splitting up is that each City Council can represent its form of area best. Too many poor urban decisions have been made because of a lopsided mostly surburban minded City Council (though even Midtowners have been trending suburban minded).

I don't know if there's a single 'right' solution but we can make the most of what we have, which is kind of unique.

[daGOAT]

I feel like keeping South around the 150 and North to Golden Plains Tech Park makes sense. Some light trimming to the NW past Parkville might work. The main piece of land I think of that does not have any assets, that I know of at least, is the area around 350 and Noland. Most of the land North of the river is at least somewhat valuable with promise to increase in the future but I think the city could go under 300 sq miles without losing anything important.

[FlippantCitizen]

^With the momentum of data centers in KCMO city proper and tax generation long term, de-annexing might make less sense at this point. You wiped out Great Plains Tech Park and I think planned Google site too.

A decade+ ago I would've agreed but at this point, where KCMO has too much land to take care of, pursue data centers, warehousing, solar/wind farms and dense up existing residential with mixed use rather than sprawling out more. That is, don't allocate any more land to large swaths of single family homes - we have plenty existing areas that need to be refurbed. And for any new or rehabbed consumer commercial areas, pursue apts on top or tightly mixed within to create walkable areas and more sustainable to maintain. Something along those lines of new urbanism or whatever can sustain itself.

The important thing is to generate enough taxes per sq mile of land so that it can sustain itself - large swaths of single family homes is the least efficient and infrastructure often too costly to maintain. That is as well all know, the 30+ year cost to build/maintain power/sewer/water/road infrastructure for 4 300 unit hirise buildings at one intersection is far less than sprawling 1200 homes. Raise property taxes for those who choose to live in SFHs to cover cost of maintaining infrastructure, partly based on density of homes per sq mile. Give relative tax breaks to property owners who contribute to efficient dense living.

I'm pretty much in agreement. I think after 60 years of having this land we are past the point of no return and we are better off trying to mold it as best as possible. If I had a time machine though...

[AlkaliAxel]

Once urban KCMO reaches critical mass is when you can consider de-annexing. Which I think will happen at some point sooner than later. I think the benefit of having the Northland is that you can manage it's growth so that it doesn't become a JoCo suburb. If KCMO can manage it correctly, it could be a suburb that grows up knowing rail and density and realizing that's a good thing, not an evil (like JoCo thinks). If you de-annex it, it will obv never achieve those things.

[dukuboy1]

Having lived in the Northland all my life, since 1976 when I was 3, until now I’ve witnessed first hand the basic out of sight out of mind approach to the Northland. They like the tax revenue & a decent place for Police & Firefighters to live for public schools within KCMO address. However with the talk of de-annexation, which I consider nothing more than a what if barstool kind of debate, where would the land, citizens & businesses go? I’m sure NKC, Gladstone, and Liberty would accept. Maybe Parkville. But do they want it? Adds to their costs. NKC could handle it best with casino revenue they get but not sure on others. Also could KCMO handle the e-tax loss of all this residents?

[daGOAT]

Having lived in the Northland all my life, since 1976 when I was 3, until now I’ve witnessed first hand the basic out of sight out of mind approach to the Northland. They like the tax revenue & a decent place for Police & Firefighters to live for public schools within KCMO address. However with the talk of de-annexation, which I consider nothing more than a what if barstool kind of debate, where would the land, citizens & businesses go? I’m sure NKC, Gladstone, and Liberty would accept. Maybe Parkville. But do they want it? Adds to their costs. NKC could handle it best with casino revenue they get but not sure on others. Also could KCMO handle the e-tax loss of all this residents?

Yeah at this point its just better to grow together. Alot of booming cities have significant sprawl but no historic 19th century urban core like we have, at least not quite as dense and interesting as we do. Having both options will just benefit us in the long run.

[shinatoo]

Controlling the land east of Raytown is ridiculous though. Split that between Raytown and Less Summit. Same with the area between LS and Grandview.

[daGOAT]

De-annexing the land east of Raytown alone would put us closer to 275 square miles and couldn't cost us more than a couple thousand residents tops. Hell it would probably be more likely to develop if it was Less Summit. I have zero faith in Raytown and not much more in Independence though.