That Noise You Just Heard Was the Death Knell of the Kansas City Star

Yes, sadly, I'm afraid we just saw the precursor of our only local newspaper dying.

Hedge fund wins auction for 

Kansas City Star publisher

What this means, of course, is that this hedge fund, capitalistic, money grubbing, profit only ghouls that they are, will, one by one, cut costs and cut costs and possibly raise the pricing and sell things off left and right until there is nothing there.

I give them a year.

In one year or less, the Kansas City Star will be no more.

And though it is a shadow of its former self, the role a newspaper has to play is an important one.

A very important one. An extremely important role.

• Without a newspaper and their reporters, there will be no one to report on City Hall.
• No one to report on the Mayor.
• The City Council.
• County offices and what they do.
• County representatives.
• State offices and how they effect the area, the region and all of us.
• State representatives and their actions and intentions.
• Trends in the area.
• Highway construction and all its impacts and effect on all of us.

And so much more.

There will be, there is, no organization left to pick up this news and information slack.

The local TV news stations and their reporting, such as it is, if you can call it reporting, touch--and I mean touch--once in a while, on one or some of the biggest, fleeting stories, at best, at most. They'll show some big car wreck or police stakeout but for big, day to day coverage?  We've seen how they go from those, again, big "blow up", brief stories right to some cute little duck YouTube video showing it cross a road because a child helped it out. Or some other pointless, inane 10 second video.

Hard hitting, important news? From a 22 minute, local nightly TV show?

Fuggedaboudit.

And then there's local bloggers. Yes, I know. The irony and maybe even hypocrisy isn't lost on me, reporting about bloggers.

But here's the deal, I don't remotely try to touch on local reporting. It's not my goal nor ever has been.  Just don't say or think some local blogger can or will take up this news gathering slack. It isn't going to happen. They have no reporters, nothing.

Finally, there is the community that is built by having a newspaper. There is the foundation that is--was, used to be--set by having us all read the same source and get good, solid information about our area, our region, our state, our city and county. We were all "on the same page" literally and figuratively. It gave us all a place to start and naturally we wouldn't then all agree on everything but we had that shared base. It did bring us together.

No, it's not just a sad day for Kansas City and the metropolitan area.

It's a tragic day.

We will all be less informed, even less informed, far less informed if not, dare I say it,  even dumber yet.

Honestly.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I'd love to be mistaken. I'd nearly put money on it I'm not.

Links:

Why We Need Newspapers

Why Newspapers Are Still Important to Journalism?

Why We Need Local Newspapers to Protect the Common Good 

This is why we need newspapers

The Continuing Debacle That Is and Will Be Our New Airport

I have to hand it to our Kansas City Star.

They've been behind a new airport for us from the start and they are just not going to let up on it, that seems clear. Here's their latest contribution.

New KCI will help region grow faster than U.S.

A bit from the article:

Kansas City’s economy will fly higher than the rest of the nation in coming years, as construction of a new airport terminal masks the region’s “disappointing” comparison to similar markets, said a forecast released Friday.

The $1.4 billion project at Kansas City International Airport stands at the center of economist Frank Lenk’s outlook for the region in 2019 and 2020. Lenk provided his annual economic projections at a Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce breakfast Friday at the Kansas City Marriott Downtown.

Apparently, just building, building an airport makes an area's economy soar.

Sure it does.

More from the article:

Lenk’s outlook reminded his audience that Harley-Davidson is shutting down its factory next year, and Procter & Gamble is heading that way in 2020, taking other jobs with them. T-Mobile plans to turn Sprint’s Overland Park headquarters campus into a secondary propertyif Washington approves the companies’ plans to merge.

Those setbacks, his report noted, will be offset by continued expansion at the Cerner Innovation Campus and Garmin’s Olathe operations, job growth at Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies and Burns & McDonnell, and new call centers and distribution centers opening here.

This is the normal churn of an active economy, saidLenk’s prepared report, which was provided to The Star ahead of his presentation.

This is the part that slays me.

KCI is something different.

“Because the funds to build the airport are coming from the airlines and not local taxpayers, this expenditure brings net new dollars to the regional economy that would not otherwise be expected,” Lenk’s report said.

Specifically, KCI’s new terminal means construction jobs. Spending by those workers means more jobs in other fields.

Wow.  "...the funds to build the airport are coming from the airlines and not local taxpayers."

O.M.G.

I don't know where the author of the article and the Star think those airlines get their funds Someone needs to tell them about plane tickets. One day very soon we'll have conversations beginning like this: "Remember when it didn't used to cost that much to fly out of Kansas City?"

And the second part of that? Where "Spending by those (construction) workers means more jobs in other fields."

That's another beauty.

How much do people think these construction workers make, anyway?

And then, if they weren't building the airport, do people really think these same construction workers would be just sitting around, not working, not making their own paychecks?

Really?

Construction workers, getting their regular paychecks that they would be getting anyway are going to lift the Kansas City economy? Really? That's how that will work?

And check out that cost.

Before this was voted on and passed, it was promised it would't be that expensive. 

Before the vote, I said it would hit a 1 billion dollar cost.

Now?

Ground isn't even plowed and it's going to cost 1.4 billion.

As if that, the cost, isn't enough, our same paper posted this 4 months ago.

Opening of new KCI terminal, originally November 2021, is already delayed

So it's going to cost us far more than estimated, projected--promised--and it's going to be late, too.

But hey, the airlines are going to build it, not us, so that makes everything a-okay.

Thanks, Kansas City Star! Thanks, City Hall!

We'll love walking away from our existing facilities, the terminals and all, just so we can build this expensive, very late boondoggle.

Costs and environment be damned.

Now the New KCI People Are Trying to Threaten US

From the Star yesterday:

If the KCI vote fails next week, city leaders say there’s no ‘Plan B’

They mean to say they have no intention or goal to keep up the place or run it well or run it right and manage it correctly?

Really?

So just because they have no plan or plans---or profess to not have any---we should vote for a more than 1 billion dollar redo at the airport?

Really?

Anyone else feel like they’re being threatened or blackmailed here besides me?

Naturally they’re going to say there’s “no plan b.” Sure they do. They want their big, new plan. I get that.

But how about, if they lose, as they should, after this vote, how about they do just that, take care of the facility, open it up, maintain it, get restaurants in, open up the restrooms, all of it? The whole thing.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Friends of KCI - Home | Facebook

Suddenly, A New Airport Is "Fiscally Responsible"

As I said earlier here, I've been receiving big postcards here in Brookside, daily, telling us all why we should vote for the billion dollar plus boondoggle that is a new, single terminal airport. I didn't get one yesterday but today got two.

And on both of these today, they both repeated the same, very familiar phrase.

The whole idea of paying out more than one billion dollars--because it will be more than one billion dollars, folks, for a new single terminal airport here in town, let there be no doubt--is both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.

I've said it repeatedly.

Fiscally irresponsible.

So what phrase is added today, to these new postcards from the "vote for a new terminal" folks?

Oh, yes. On both of them, they suddenly say "fiscally responsible."

They ripped me off.

Suddenly, suddenly they're touting a completely new airport terminal as "fiscally responsible."

The previous day, on the post card for that day, as proof, they called it "fiscally smart."

Forget that it will cost us more than 1 billion dollars.

Forget that we're walking away from 3 existing, functioning, convenient, attractive, very practical terminals and other buildings and facilities there so they can be torn down and thrown away.

Forget that we could spend far, far less on our existing facilities and get the security we need and the restaurants and all the other facilities we want and need.

Forget all that.

They're saying we should only throw away the old buildings, build new and spend, spend, spend.

Since when is spending more--in this case, a lot more--to get  what you want and need "fiscally responsible"?

Only now does that make sense and only according to the "new KCI" people.

So they ripped me off for the phrase. Great for them.

They should give me residuals.

The fact is, building a new airport is not only unnecessary but fiscally irresponsible.

And very much so.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Today's New Airport Lie Du Jour

Okay, here we go again.

I got yet another postcard yesterday, lying to me, to all of us, about how we "need a new airport" and all the reasons behind it.

Today's blatant ugliness and misrepresentation of truth and facts blares out the following:

"A Better KCI =

Thousands of Jobs +
More Than $! Billion
in Economic Impact"

And see? Here's what's wrong, so very wrong about that.

First, when they call it "economic impact", they describe it as "more than $1 billion."

But when they talk about cost? When they talk about the price of this boondoggle?

Then they only call it $1 billion.

I say again, don't kid yourself, ladies and gentlemen, let's not kid ourselves. If they get this shiny, new, single terminal airport, it's going to cost MORE THAN 1 BILLION DOLLARS.

Let there be no doubt.

Second, this thing calls for "thousands of jobs."

Well, yeah, sure. I get that, we get that. It takes lots of people to build an airport.

But guess what?

Those are temporary jobs. The airport only takes so long to build. Then those jobs go away.

As a matter of fact, the new, single terminal airport they're proposing would actually have FEWER gates than the 3 terminals we have now. Seems as though, if they get their shiny new toy, there would be LESS jobs, ultimately, since fewer people would be needed to run the place.

I propose an alternate idea and solution, once more.

How about we only spend half of that? Or, heck, even two-thirds that much, of that 1 billion dollars, and update and modernize and repair our existing airport, instead of throwing it away?

--We end up with the better, more functioning and better looking airport we want and need
--We don't blow through more than 1 billion dollars
--We don't end up walking away from and almost literally throwing away 3 good, functioning, attractive, very convenient buildings and a lot of others
--and finally, we don't end up raising the prices of the tickets for flying in and out of our city.

Because while the Mayor and all the proponents of this new, more than 1 billion dollar airport want to keep saying "It won't be paid for with your taxes" or "We don't end up paying for it", we do, in fact, end up paying for it.

We pay for it in higher prices to fly into and out of our city and region.

Which brings up another one of their lies.

They say this new airport is supposed to bring more people to our city.

In the first place, I've shown here, earlier, how our current airport, as badly and poorly managed as it has been and is, up to now, has seen month to month and year to year growth in the numbers of people using our airport. So already that's not an isssue.

So how, exactly, do you INCREASE the number of people coming into your city and region by RAISING THE PRICE, the cost of doing just that, of flying into your city?

And of course the answer is, you don't.

So let's get serious. Let's get real here.

Let's start being responsible, modernize and update and repair our existing airport and terminals, make them more attractive and functional again while we also do the fiscally responsible thing as well as the environmentally responsible.

It's not as "fun" or sexy as talking about a bright, shiny, new, single terminal airport but it's the smart  and right thing to do.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

savekci.org

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) | Twitter

The 500 Million Dollar Lie About the Airport We Keep Hearing

Another thing we all keep hearing from our Mayor Sly James and the new airport supporters, that our current airport "...needs $500 million dollars in repairs just to keep it operating with no improvements."

Excuse me?

They're trying to say that if we give our currently functioning airport 5oo million dollars---one half billion dollars---in improvements that it wouldn't be vastly improved and functioning and looking, both, better than it is now?

Really?

That is very difficult to believe in the extreme.

It already works. It's already increasing in flights in and out of our city, month after month and year after year and if we add 500 hundred million dollars of updates and improvements, it won't do and be doing what we need?

Please.   That's just absurd.

As for jobs, spending $500 million dollars for those updates and improvements would create plenty of local construction jobs so that argument is taken from them, as well.

So, another misrepresentation.

What will the new lie be tomorrow?

Save KCI!

Save KCI

Every Day Now, Some New Lie About a New Airport

Really, it's come down to one new lie, more misrepresentations about the old and new airports every day now.

Today, in the mail, yet another big postcard, telling me, us, why we should spend more than one billion dollars on a new airport.

Here's what came today----

It says we should buy and spend and build this new airport because:

"A Better KCI Brings More Jobs and Businesses to KC"

Whoa.

Slow down there, cowboy.

Let's look at that.

First, a new airport, more than one billion dollars or no (and it will be more than 1 billion dollars, let's not kid ourselves) will no way "bring more jobs."

Oh, sure, it will bring some construction jobs.  For a while. For as long as it takes to make it.

What is that?

A year? 18 months? Two years?

But that's it.

There would be some construction jobs and then they'd go away.

And then the other half.

Bring more "businesses to KC"?

Since when did a business--any business except airport food service--take more jobs to a city just because they have a new airport?

It doesn't happen.

That's just silly.

No company goes around to other cities, looking at their airport to decide where they're going to locate first.  That's absurd.

That's when, on this postcard today they say "That's why we need a better KCI."

The fact is, I say again, we don't need a new airport. We need an airport authority that will see to the updating and modernizing of the airport we have. It's only as "out of date" as they have ignored and neglected it and let it be and stay undone and unattractive and less functional because they want a shiny new bauble in a single terminal airport, complete with it's billion plus dollar price tag.

The postcard today says "Kansas City can compete and win the new Amazon headquarters, which will bring 50,000 new jobs and billion in economic development."

That sounds like a guarantee to me. And it's a guarantee they can't deliver.

Yes, we need "a better KCI."  Sure. And all we need to do for it is take care of and modernize and update the airport we have. We absolutely don't need to walk away from our current one, only to build new, completely, from ground up, nearby. That would be stupid. That would be fiscally irresponsible. It would also be environmentally irresponsible.

So no. Vote a resounding no on Question 1 November 7.

We can do better than this.

We can do much better than this.

And smarter.

And it will cost far less.

VOTE NO NOVEMBER 1

I keep getting mailers with our own Mayor Sly James on them, telling me to "Vote yes November 1" on a  new, single terminal airport here in Kansas City.

To which I say:

OH HELL NO.

Reasons why:

--This new single terminal boondoggle they want, this new, shiny bauble, will cost in excess---likely far in excess---of 1 billion dollars. That's reason enough. But it goes much, much farther than that.

--They say it will bring more flights to Kansas City.

That is utter nonsense.

Since when does anyone, anyone fly to a city for their airport? That's absurd. You go for family, friends, attractions. Heck, you go for the arts first. If the Nelson-Atkins Museum built another new building, THAT would get more people here, not some silly airport.

--Few people mention that this new, single terminal will actually have LESS GATES for planes than we have available now, with our 3 terminals.  Less.  So again, why would a new airport get us more flights?

--We've actually already been getting more flights in the last few years, even with the Airport Authority up there closing down one terminal. Check out the trend.

KCI Passenger Growth Continued 

in November

KCI Airport Passenger Traffic Up 

for 13th Straight Month

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

One Million Passengers

KCI breaking records 

with one million passengers served in August

Annual passengers at KCI Airport exceed 11 million in 2016 

KCI Passengers Up 8.8 Percent in February

KCI Passengers Up Three Percent in April

KCI topped 1 million passengers in May 2017

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

Third Busiest July on Record

KCI Passengers up 6.6 Percent in November

Kansas City International Airport 

Reports 37th Consecutive Month of

 Passenger Growth

So, please, City Hall? Mayor? Kansas City Star? Everyone else? Don't give us this nonsense that "We need a new airport so we can grow" here in Kansas City. We're already growing. You guys just aren't reporting it.

---The fact is, the facts are, our airport, if it does look bad, it does so because the airport authority wants it to. I've written and said this before. They've been jonesing for a new, shiny toy in a single terminal airport FOR YEARS. And so, to get one, they've put off maintenance and overall made the place look run down and disjointed because they want us to walk away from all those buildings up there, fork over the cool one billion dollars plus it will take to get them this new toy and let them have their fun.  Yeah, no thanks.

---If you don't think we will all pay for this somehow, you are certainly kidding yourself. Those of us who fly will pay and pay dearly. Those reasonably priced tickets to get to Grandma's house or vacation or business trips or whatever will be a thing of the distant past. And it will be painful, folks, don't kid yourself. It will be expensive, very expensive and again, painful.

---There is no reason in the world, construction, cost or otherwise, we can't use Terminal B as the main access point for the airport and then construct walkways out to Terminals A and C, to get to all the rest of the flights we want and need. It would save us hundreds of millions of dollars, folks. It would be fiscally responsible, very unlike the grossly, fiscally irresponsible idea of, again, walking away from our current facilities and building all brand new, nearby.

The Star even tries scare tactics and outright lies to get us to vote for this billion dollar plus waste and boondoggle.

The existing KCI can't be made secure for a post-9/11 world

And if our current airport were updated and modernized and made more secure, as it should be, it would create jobs, construction jobs, just as the callers for a new airport would. Would it be as many jobs? No, certainly not, but we wouldn't be blowing through more than 1 billion dollars, either.

A new, single terminal airport here in Kansas City would be, I say again, fiscally and environmentally irresponsible and to huge degrees, on both issues.

People forget that, in the not-that-distant past, our airport had restaurants on the 2nd level where we could look out on the runways as flights came and went. That was back when it was newer, yes, but it was also back when the airport was well run and better run than it is now. We shouldn't forget that. It was done once--that is, run right and run well and it could be, again. We just need to demand it. It's out airport, after all. We pay for it. We keep it going.

So hell yes and hell no. This November 1, make sure you vote, first of all. And then, make damn sure you vote a clear, strong NO---HELL, NO, if you can---when it comes to the billion dollar plus boondoggle they want up North, for our airport.

And then let's get back the airport we all deserve. A well run one. A completely functioning, attractive, modern one. We can.  We can do this.

Let's all give ourselves a terrific holiday gift this year. Let's do the responsible thing. Let's do the fiscally intelligent thing. Let's do the environmentally responsible thing.

VOTE NO NOVEMBER 1.

The Great Single Airport, Billion-Plus Dollar Bamboozle

Yes sir, Kansas City.  The powers that be in the city, from the Airport Authority to City Hall to the Mayor's office to The Kansas City Star to now, heck, even George Brett have all decided we cannot and will not renovate and renew our only 40 year old airport. They and more have all decided we must, must walk away from our existing facilities, terminals and all, and build anew.

They decided this long ago.

Our Airport Authority decided it first and now they've gotten everyone else to go along with it and its successfully--for them--snowballed, ever since.

The thing is on this, besides the fact that they want us all to accept this fiscally irresponsible idea and expense but they also are, in no way, addressing who's going to pay for it or how our flight ticket prices will increase because of it all.

Forget the fact that, besides being, again, fiscally irresponsible and very expensive, very soon, once it goes through (and it will go through, rest assured), they also no way want to mention how environmentally irresponsible this is.

WE'RE GOING TO THROW AWAY MANY, MANY BUILDINGS OUT THERE.

We're going to just walk away from them.  Poof.

Then, last evening, I even saw this beauty of an article from The Star:

Editorial: Why an increase in 

airline passenger fees could actually be

 a good deal for passengers

So not only is this whole expense going to cost more than 1 billion dollars, it is also completely, totally unnecessary. The current facilities could be renovated for the security they're calling for. They won't but we should.

And now they want us to believe the inevitable increase in our passenger fees is---wait for it---GOING TO BE GOOD FOR US!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

If I don't laugh, I cry.

The one gain we've gotten out of this is that finally, finally The Star is acknowledging that the prices and costs for our flights are going to go up.

Small progress.

Americans---and Kansas Citians--Need Better Imaginations

As a nation, as a people, we have some pretty significant problems not least of which is our outrageously, unaffordably high health care.

The rest of the world does not-for-profit health care but us? Here in the good ol' US of A?

We can't imagine a different system.

Further, we don't look at other systems around the world, most of us. In spite of the fact that, again, nearly, if not entirely the whole world doesn't tie health and health care directly to profit, we can't imagine doing it.

Let that sink in because it's true.

We can't imagine doing with our health care system, as a nation, what the rest of the world already does and has done for at least decades, if not a century or more.

And it's the same, more locally, with our airport, KCI, MCI, Kansas City International Airport.

Too many can't imagine saving the existing buildings and using them, using them well, revamping them and thereby being far more fiscally and environmentally responsible.

Like most "good Americans", all we can imagine is taking bulldozers to the entire complex and building new.

It doesn't have to be that way.  At all.

Almost completely a year ago now, a local architecture group, Crawford Architects laid out a plan to do just that. That is, to renovate and reuse the existing buildings, thereby, again, being more fiscally responsible--read:  saving money--and being far more environmentally responsible.

Another KCI renovation option surfaces

For a rough overview, here it is.

It would cost less, very likely, to renovate our existing buildings there than to walk away from them, from all of it and build a new, single terminal, first.  Heck, even if it cost the same, it's still far, far more responsible renovating and reusing than doing the tear-down/walk away.  Additionally, the new, single terminal design offers LESS GATES than our existing buildings.

Understand this. The proponents of a new, single terminal want to do it because we need to be able to grow but WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE FEWER GATES FROM WHICH TO ENTER AND EXIT THE TERMINAL?

Really?

And that makes sense how?  And to whom?

And check this out. In this year just ended, 2016, we're already increasing the passenger numbers.

KCI Passengers Up 8.8 Percent in February

KCI Passenger Growth Continued 

in November

And that's with the Airport Authority not even doing their duty, taking care of our terminals out there and keeping all of them open.

So come on, Kansas City, Kansas Citians. Heck, everyone from the metropolitan area and region that uses this airport.  Let's show some imagination and do this thing right. Let's not do the good, old, wasteful American habit of tearing down, walking away and building anew elsewhere.  It's expensive, it's unnecessary, it's wasteful, and it's wildly, environmentally irresponsible.

For fairness and the love of all that's good and right and true and intelligent, everyone in the Kansas City metropolitan area and region who has any concern or question about this issue--and we all should because we're going to pay for it--should read this article over at Save KCI!

Resolve To Avoid Spaghetti And 

Ask More Questions in 2016

Read it, please.

And let's all use our imaginations.

KCPT and Their Lily White "Ruckus"

The local PBS station, KCPT, has a weekly news/conversation program each Thursday evening called "Ruckus" it is widely known. And it's usually a pretty good program, definitely, discussing local government and business current events. Given the shrinking of the Kansas City Star in town, it becomes an even more important outlet, if brief, at 30 minutes.

Last night's program, however, had at least one glaring problem I and I believe a lot of others would agree.

There was the very white, Right Wing host, three white men and one white woman.

That was it.

I swore there were Black Americans and Hispanics and other races that lived in our city.

I swore there was. Is.

There wasn't even any indication there was a Liberal or Left Winger on the program. Honestly, not one. You'd think they might have one so they could gang up and verbally beat up on and abuse them, the way now-deceased John McLaughlin used to do to Eleanor Clift on "The McLaughlin Group."  Maybe Steve Glorioso wasn't available? Someone else? The program has had "people of color", minorities on it in the past, as anyone who watches it knows, just not last night.

Apparently, their idea of "inclusion" is letting a woman sit with them. Heck, the host, Mike Shanin, even asked her a question. Two, even.

Between the host and the crotetchety, deeply Right Wing attorney Steve Mirakian  and, again, the Libertarian, they got the Republicans and Right Wing covered, 10 ways from Sunday. (I will say one good thing about the Libertarian. At least he's against the unnecessary boondoggle of a new, billion dollar airport). 

The other part of this inclusion of theirs is letting a self--professed Libertarian (whatever that means) on the show.

But a Black person from the city this week? A Hispanic? Heck, an Asian? Anything else?

I guess that would make a ruckus.
Understand, I love my KCPT and PBS, absolutely. I wouldn't want to live without it.

I just thought their standards were and would be higher, and more inclusive, than this.

Link:  Ruckus | KCPT

What Does Rex Sinquefield Gain By Messing With Kansas City?

So once again, rich, billionaire, St. Louisan Rex Sinquefield tries yet one more time to have Kansas Cititans vote on and, for him, hopefully do away with our 1% city tax.

Here's a guy who's from St. Louis, for pity's sake and a billionaire but he wants to mess with this city across the state, a city he doesn't even live in---and he's already wealthy---yet he has to mess with Kansas City and Kansas Citians and their taxes.

What is his gain in this?

Why doesn't he leave us alone? Why doesn't he leave us all alone?

Is this not one of the best, if not the best example of a wealthy person trying to have his way with the rest of the state, with the middle-, lower- and working-classes, if not the rest of the nation?

Trying to buy the state's next governor  with Catherine Hanaway and the next Lt. Governor as he's been trying to do, I understand. It's still  wrong and deeply so but that I understand.

What he gets,real or imagined, from draining Kansas City's tax coffers, thatI don't get.

What part of "public meeting" don't these people get?

So the Mayor's panel on deciding what we're going to do with our airport met yesterday for the first time and it was reported to be a public meeting--but they threw two people out who wanted to be there?

Seriously?

From the Kansas City Star today:

Public gets first input as KCI study panel meets

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/06/4276925/kci-task-force-says-it-will-try.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas City’s airport study panel held its first public meeting Thursday and said its goal will be to recommend the best airport to serve the region now and for future generations.     

     

Commission co-chairman Bob Berkebile said he hopes the group can issue its recommendations before the end of the year.

But already the initiative has been embroiled in a minor controversy. Two people were excluded from the public meeting at Union Station.

Dan Coffey, a member of a group gathering petition signatures against a new airport terminal, said he and a colleague were unfairly prevented from attending the meeting.

Coffey said that he had been gathering petition signatures in front of Union Station before the meeting but that security told him to leave. When he then tried to attend the task force meeting, security told him he had to leave and he did. Coffey said he was never told what law he was violating or why he had to leave. So it's a "public meeting" but you throw the public out? Then, get this: Union Station Kansas City Inc. issued a statement later saying that Union Station is not a public building and does not allow petition signing inside on any issue. The statement said the petitioners refused to move to a public area outside the building, so security and Kansas City police officers helped move them to a public area.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/06/4276925/kci-task-force-says-it-will-try.html#storylink=cpy

 We all thought it was a public building, didn't we? Yet they throw the ones they don't want in there, out? And they called it a "public meeting." Yet they want and expect the people's input and trust on all this? Seriously? It's surely not getting off on the proverbial "right foot" here, is it?

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/06/4276925/kci-task-force-says-it-will-try.html#storylink=cpy

Southwest Airlines---expands??

Yessiree, I read it just this afternoon on none other than our own Kansas City International Airport's Facebook page:

Southwest Airlines restarted service to Oakland and Seattle-Tacoma this week. Book your flight to the West coast soon!

Imagine that.  And we didn't even have to tear down a terminal to get it.

Link:  http://www.facebook.com/Southwest?fref=ts

This is a city ethics code?

City ethics code?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Reportedly, this week, our own city hall adopted what they're calling an ethics code:

New ethics code, approved Thursday, says Kansas City employees can't accept gifts worth more than $1,000.

Are you kidding me?

They can accept gifts up to $1000?

Who doesn't think our city government representatives can't be bought for $1000 or less?

Especially if, say, this month they get $1000 and then next month and the month after that, ad inifinitum?

Or $1000 this week from me and $1000 next week from my wife and another $1000 the week after that from my kid, 'cuz, you know, it's all perfectly legal, right?  Right?

I ask again--who here thinks their representative can't be bought?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Come on, guys, try a bit harder.

We know there are absolutely no limits down in Jefferson City for gifts or "campaign contributions" (don't make me laugh) but it's City Hall. You have to have more and better--read: lower--gift limits than this.

Get real.

On KCI and Pitch Magazine's Cover Story

The Pitch Magazine is out today, as usual, and this week, their cover story is on our airport and the pros and cons of building a new, single terminal.

It's an excellent article, very comprehensive.

And as usual, the Kansas City Star got scooped.

Sometimes, occasionally, even The New York Times scoops the local paper, as they did last year on a report out of Kansas but this time, the local free paper got the better of them.

The article points out some important, if rather obvious and already-covered points about any possible new terminal:

Does the city need a new, billion-dollar Kansas City International ...

Points the article and others of us make about our airport:

1) Airline traffic is down nationally, at least, anyway, for all airlines especially since the financial collapse of 2008. No one and nothing can or will change that;

2) Airlines are, if anything, shrinking and consolidating. There are fewer airlines, not more so expansion of any isn't on the horizon and isn't going to get more flights here;

3) Airlines, like all other businesses, want and need to keep their costs low. That just stands to reason. A new airport would, make no mistake, as the article points out, raise costs for those airlines, too. Sure, they'd pass them on to their ticket buying customers but their costs would be higher, period. As the article says:

"Costs would almost certainly increase with a new terminal — for parking, for a cup of coffee and for landing an airliner on a runway."

4) There is nothing wrong with our existing airport that can't be changed by revamping it, updating and innovating it and at far lower cost than of the 1.2 billion dollars a new airport terminal would cost. Not only that, but the updating and innovating, especially on heating and cooling, could well end up with additional savings on the facilities;

5) A little-known fact about our airport, at least to the person on the street--It has now 90 available gates for flights. We're using far fewer of those right now. With a new, very-expensive, single terminal, we would have 37 gates.  Seriously.  Yet people pushing a new terminal want to talk expansion;

6) There is even a question of whether or not Kansas City can AFFORD to pay for the new airport, let alone if it's really needed. Pitch seems to cover this, the financing aspects, very thoroughly and in all detail. They make just one great point here, as just one example:

Kansas City's finance team estimates that a single terminal could fetch 2.8 percent in interest rates. They would be lucky to find single-digit interest rates among private-equity financiers or pension funds looking to invest in municipally owned airports.

Bonds are sold to investors to drum up quick cash. The upfront money would pay for the airport's construction. Buyers would be repaid by airport revenues — from coffee, parking spaces, landing fees.

The city would not be on the hook to make up the difference if the airport didn't produce enough revenue to cover bond payments. Bondholders would be screwed on their investments, but so would the airport's reputation when it wanted to issue bonds in the future.

And federal funds? Fuggedaboudit:  "You can't put together a financing plan that's dependent on the federal government," Kansas City Manager Troy Schulte tells The Pitch.

So the very financing and affordability of a new airport is even an issue and in question, let's be clear. Not only can we possibly not afford it, it doesn't make sense to tear a working, existing one down to do so.

7) City Manager Schulte and the Airport Authority want to make more money than we do now at the airport with concessions. With the existing layout, naturally, that's not possible because everyone's corralled in the security areas, away from the restaurants, etc.

I say again, if we use Terminal B for the main security clearance area--most or all of the building--and then have walkways out to Terminals A and C, we could have the security needed for today's post-9/11 airports as well as the restaurants and added concessions.

Both problems, solved. And at far, far less cost than the 1.2 billion dollar boondoggle they want with a new, single terminal.

8) As for deicing and the drainage it needs, the article covers that very well, again, and makes clear there's no reason that can't be done at the existing airport and at far less cost. And let's face it, how many days per year is that in use? It's not a high volume of deicer since there aren't that many days per year when its called  for.

9) And finally, nearly most importantly, a new terminal categorically does not bring a new flying public to a city. To think otherwise is at least foolish if not utterly mistaken. No one flies to a city to see their new airport as I've written here before. A few architects might--might--and that's doubtful but that would be it.

So, again, kudos to Pitch Magazine for a good, comprehensive article that doesn't really take sides but just covers the issues in front of us.

Hopefully, in a couple of months or so, the Star will do an update on the subject of their own.

How you can help Save KCI

We will have volunteers out this weekend at the Cosentinos and/or Price Chopper in Brookside collecting signatures if you would like to sign. 

If you would like to help and take a shift collecting signatures even better! 

To sign you must be a registered voter in Kansas City, MO. 

If you want to volunteer it doesn’t matter where you live, your help is needed and appreciated. 

To volunteer for this weekend or any other shift please contact friendsofkci@gmail.com and our volunteer coordinator will get back with you.

Kudos to the Star today, on the airport

Kudos and salutations to the Kansas City Star today, for printing an article that goes against their own, earlier editorial on our airport:

Airport terminal projects don't guarantee growth

It's as some of us in town, me for one, Save KCI! another, have said, building a new airport in no way guarantees more airlines and flights. No way.

 

From the article:

 

Building a new airport terminal doesn’t guarantee that kind of success, says Steven Malanga, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a market-oriented public policy think tank. Malanga has written about airport expansions that didn’t live up to their promise, such as in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.

“People are right to be suspicious because there is a tendency within the aviation bureaucracy to want to update by building, rather than reconstructing,” Malanga said. “One thing you can be sure of in the current economic environment, if you’ve seen your own air traffic shrink, it’s unlikely a new terminal will drive economic growth.”

Mike Boyd, a Denver-based aviation specialist who is not involved with KCI’s plans but is familiar with the airport, agreed that a new terminal doesn’t assure new business.

“No, it won’t bring in new airlines,” he said. “They’ve all merged or gone out of business.”

 

It's as though the Airport Authority--and anyone who wants to push a new airport on us--wants to totally disavow or ignore that we've gone through the worst economic downturn in 80 years. When that happens and virtually all, if not specifically all, businesses are hurt and experience cuts in business and so, naturally, revenue, wouldn't it follow that airlines business would also decrease? And when that is the case, as it most surely is, how does building a new airport help that? How would that help business
And when you add that downturn to the fact that, as said, above, the airlines have merged, how, exactly, would building a new airport add new service to the area?  How does that work unless, along with that new building, you somehow, magically, I don't know, create a mountain range for people to come to, also?  Or an ocean? Or something, to draw people here?

If we're talking new buildings to increase flights, the new Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts, downtown, is far more likely to bring in more flights than a new airport. And we already did that.

Since when do people fly into cities because of or for their airports, regardless the city? How and when does that make any sense?

Sure, a handful of architects might fly in---might---but that's not going to create the kind of sustained increase needed or desired.

The author of the article hints at what should happen when they write about what Mr. Boyd, above says need to happen:

But he is emphatic that KCI must change or continue to lose ground to its competitors.

I say again, one more time, and I'll keep saying it, we can update and innovate the current, existing buildings, I believe, and achieve all we want and need.

If we update the existing airport, we can get the single building we need for security by using most or all of Terminal B for that. Then, by creating walkways out to Terminals A and C, we can gain what's needed in gates. Along with that, we could and should install updates in HVAC and other energy updates and the drainage from the jets wash, we can gain the both environmental improvements as well as energy savings.

There would be no reason to not make improvements in appearance on the buildings, also.  With all this, we'd also gain huge cost savings over the 1,200,000,000 dollars that would otherwise be necessary for a totally new, single terminal.

Let's not throw away one diamond--the existing airport--just so we can buy yet another.

We need to stop this "Let's throw away this building and build another" mentality in the area, at least, if not the nation. This would be a great place to start.