Leave our danged airport alone

Here we go again. The front page article on the Star today is on the city's ideas of tinkering--meaning tearing down--our very functional and popular 3-terminal airport and replacing it with a one-terminal one. Ai-yi-yi. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO KILL THIS DESTRUCTIVE, WASTEFUL, UNAPPRECIATED IDEA? Not only is it a great-looking, still contemporary airport but WE LIKE THE WAY WE CAN GET FROM OUR CARS, STRAIGHT TO THE GATES AND ON THE PLANES. Leave the damn thing alone. city aviation director Mark VanLoh said in an interview. “It’s a mess” and that "Airline mergers have resulted in one crowded terminal at KCI and two that are half-empty. Multiple security checkpoints require nearly 500 screeners, hundreds more than other airports need. Environmental contamination and antiquated heating and cooling systems can’t be fixed without new construction. When people ask whether a new terminal is the best way, VanLoh responds, 'It’s the only way. We’ve tried. We’ve remodeled.'" To which I reply "hogwash." You can't tell me replacing old heating and cooling systems--which would also be far more efficient due to far newer technology--would be more expensive than tearing down a building and starting all over again. That cannot possibly make sense financially or logically. As for the traffic at the terminals? Here's a thought--put the busiest airlines at the two end terminals--A and C--and fill all the rest of the spaces--beginning with B, of course--in the rest of the spaces. Fill B completely, with all the little airlines possible, then go out from there to the busier airlines. It's a balance. The fact is, we all know, we like our terminals and to tear them down would be wasteful and then, building yet another, new one in its place would also be wasteful. Let's spend our money on all the other things we need like, oh, I don't know, how about repairing all the sewer and pipe lines across the city? There are still 2 very significant leaks on Southwest Trafficway, just South of 31st Street that have been putting out pretty good quantities of water for months now. Here's another idea: How about somehow cleaning the water of Brush Creek so it isn't always and forever a sewer? Here's yet another: The bridges and streets are yet more infrastructure that need attention AND we've already gotten one big fine from the Federal Government because we've been slow on repairing them. What say we avoid yet another, additional, possibly bigger fine? Another, new, different airport when a) we like this one, b) it's very functional and effective, c) it's still attractive and finally, d) to bulldoze it would be grossly wasteful are clearly all reasons we should KEEP MCI AS IT IS. Leave the damn thing alone. Leave us alone. Go do other, productive and helpful work that we really need. Sheesh. Let this idea die a quick death, once and for all. Please. Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/19/3276094/like-it-or-not-kci-needs-to-change.html

The Brush Creek Islands

I wrote of this some weeks ago, that there has developed, in Brush Creek, just East of the Plaza, a rather large and impromptu "island"--seriously, an island--in the middle of the creek and that it seems that the city will have to come up with a solution for this one of these days. I think they're going to have to eventually somehow scoop or dredge it out. It's growing rather healthily and quickly, it seems. In addition--and why I write today--is to say there are also, now, little and not-so-little peninsulas also extending out from the creek banks on both the North and South sides of the same creek. Finally, also, and additionally more surprising, is the fact that this last week, I noticed yet another "island" forming, and, again, rather surprisingly quickly, further East of the original island, just short of the large waterfall or drop-off in the creek. It seems Brush Creek is becoming very stagnant East of the Plaza, for whatever reason. I wonder if the city is paying any attention to this. I wonder if the Water Department has noticed. And if they've noticed, do they care? Does it matter? It seems it will, if even just eventually.

"Waterfire", renamed

Last evening's performance on Brush Creek should be renamed. It was to be "Waterfire", of course, and it's always terrific but last night's should just be called "Water", what with the rain before it, which delayed the beginning, and then at the end, hastening it's close. I will say this, though, too--the blocking of the sidewalks along the creed stifled the flow and fun of the event. In the past, we could all, as a crowd, go up and down, back and forth at the creek so it made the whole experience very flowing and open and "alive". This time, because we weren't to be on the sidewalks--they were concerned the creek would rise and there we'd all be in water up to our ankles--it killed some of the energy of the event. Still, though, it was fun and a great street party. And Kansas City doesn't have enough street parties.

Considering Brush Creek (Or is it "Flush Creek"?)

With the celebrated and totally fun "Waterfire" coming up again this month at Brush Creek, it seems a good time to examine it a bit. First thing, let's admit that it's not so much a clean waterway for our enjoyment, as citizens of the city--it's a drainage for who knows what. Years ago, my daughter and I would spend one evening per week walking the Plaza and so, of course, Brush Creek. One evening, as we were on one of those walks, we noticed a couple of things about the Creek. The first thing we noticed was that it was running black all of a sudden. On further examination, there was a drainage pipe a bit West of the waterfall drop that was oozing out some thick black goo. The second thing we noticed was that it was having the effect of killing everything in the creek. The last thing we noticed was that two city Water Department crew members were there, taking it all in. I have regretted, ever since, not asking them what in the world was happening and where that pipe led to, besides Mission Hills. It was at that time I realized, again, that Brush Creek is just really drainage. Which brings me to my query. That is, I'd love to know the history of the thing. But what I want to know is the technical history of it--why it's set up like it is and why we haven't done anything about it, to clean it up. It shouldn't be the sewer that it apparently is. Thank goodness it doesn't stink (that much). Now, there's a more recent development that I don't think is getting any attention. That is, just East of Cleveland, on Emanuel Cleaver II Boulevard (the former Van Brunt to you and me), an island has sprung up in the middle of the creek. True. An island. I've been watching it form since last Winter. It began as just muck and mire that built up, over time, from upstream. But it congealed, formed a mass rather like mud, anchored and now has grown grass, I think, or some weeds all over it. It looks as though it was meant to be there. That and along the banks of the creek, further down, the same stuff is forming more along the shores, narrowing the channel. My point in bringing this up? One, to point it out. It seems no one has that I've seen. Two, I bring it up because I think the city should, once and for all, clean up Brush Creek and the sooner the better. The city--the people and the government, both--should get behind this and do it, if we can afford it. If we can't afford it right now, at least do a study to see what it would take to clean it up--what it would take technically and then what it would take financially so, one day, hopefully, we could do just that--clean up and then enjoy our precious "Flush Creek".

 

This wouldn't be any big deal but this accomplishes two things: it gives the near-obligatory photo of the fountain in front of the Eddie Bauer store, which we all like so much, think, and because it shows this rather cute couple. I say cute (reluctantly, believe me) because they were getting a picture of what looked to be their newborn baby on what must be the child's first Thanksgiving and then I felt I had to get a shot of them because they wore matching "Thanksgiving brown" clothing. I wouldn't do it but it was cute on them.

And now for something completely different

I was listening, as I do every morning, to KCUR 89.3 FM radio, they were speaking with the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson about the area.

Frank Morris was talking to her specifically about Brush Creek and how raw sewage goes right into it.

What?

Are we a Third-World country or what?

Why is there raw sewage in Brush Creek in Kansas City, Missouri--the middle of the city--in 2009?

How was this ever started?

When was it begun?

Why hasn't this been discontinued since the Clean Waters Act of 1970, 1971 or after the amendments of 1977?

Why do we have raw sewage in the middle of this city still, to this date? It makes no sense. It's irresponsible. It's inexcusable. It's unhealthy, for goodness sake.

Let's do try to get some Federal "green" money, to get this situation taken care of.

Besides having a place that's one we can be proud of, it's the right, decent and clean thing for us to do. It's good for us and for freshwater plants and animals, too.

I can hardly believe we have to have this conversation.