An Idea and Hope for the New Boondoggle Airport

Okay, so we're getting a new airport, a single terminal airport and it's going to cost us all big time and the tear down and new construction is going on now. We all know that.

I have an idea.

A suggestion.

We're the "City of Fountains", right?  Sure we are.

Simple, straightforward idea.  (You can see where this is going).

On the entrance/exit to this magnificent, unnecessary, expensive, wasteful, fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, again, boondoggle, I'm hoping it's already been brought up and put into the plans to have a huge, beautiful fountain, of course.

It only makes sense.

It would be our way of kind of showing off but also, better yet, putting our local thumbprint on everyone's experiences as they, yes, enter and exit this new structure and our city.

We got everything else wrong about our airport from throwing away the functioning, growing one we had to now buying up this new one.

Let's get this one thing right, anyway.

And not one of those God-awful modern sculptures, drizzling water down like we had at our previous airport.

It should be a large, full-blown, beautiful, spraying fountain not unlike the one across from the entrance to Union Station. But maybe even bigger.

Also maybe not unlike the grand, once more, spraying fountains everyone sees and remembers in Las Vegas. Something like that.

As for the price and cost and paying for it?

How about one--or more--of the area's philanthropic families picking up the tab? They get naming rights and a tax write-off, of course. Maybe the Hallmark Fountain??  Or another Block? Or Kauffman? Or whomever?

So, hattya' say, Kansas City?

Let's do this.

Let's get at least one thing right about our shiny new airport.

Link:

KCI Airport Art Project Moves Ahead Led by Public Art Consultant Community Arts International

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.

We Warned About a New Airport

From the Star yesterday.

Out of the gate, KCI delay and rising costs 

are red flags for the airport

We could have spent far less and redone our existing, very convenient terminals, saved a great deal of money, done the fiscally responsible thing and, oh yeah, not trashed the environment by throwing away existing facilities but no, let's do this.

Let's blow more than a billion dollars, instead.

Enjoy those higher, much higher airline ticket prices, too, kids.

First Lie of the New Single Terminal Airport Confirmed

This hit yesterday in the Star.

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

So that's the first promise shattered on this airport and all the promises made. The first lie broached.

The next one?

That it "will cost less than one billion dollars."

It will shatter that figure.

Watch for it.

Wait for it.

All so we could walk away from a very usable, fixable, intelligently designed, convenient airport.

Brilliant.

Suckers.

Fantastic Irony and Coincidence

I just saw this on the Kansas City Public Library's website, earlier today.

On this day...

Plane Speaking | KC HISTORY

On November 11, 1972, the Kansas City International Airport officially opened for commercial service. The airport replaced the existing Mid-Continent Airport at the same location. Twenty years before, the 1951 flood destroyed many Fairfax Airport facilities on the west side of the Missouri River and compromised operations at the downtown Municipal Airport. With the area’s two main airports shut down, Kansas City began planning a new airport 20 miles north of the flooded city.

In the same week we voted to bulldoze our very convenient, very workable airport.

Pretty bizarre.

Have a great weekend, y'all, regardless.

KCI/MCI: Still Convenient, Still Beautiful

This was made some time ago but it's still true today.



VOTE NO! tomorrow, folks, on Question 1 here in Kansas City. Kill the more than one billion dollar boondoggle that is a new, single terminal airport.

Then, let's hold the Airport Authority accountable. It's not THEIR airport to neglect and manage poorly and keep run down and looking shoddy so they can get a new, very expensive bauble.

IT'S OUR AIRPORT.

And they should run it well and smart and smartly, as they should have all along. It can be done and it should be done.

VOTE TOMORROW! AND VOTE NO! ON QUESTION ONE!

Links:

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) | Twitter

A Less Convenient, More Congested, Extremely Expensive and Completely Unnecessary Single Terminal Airport

A friend--an architect, no less--made this very clear, intelligent, fair observation this past week out on Facebook. (See link and credit below).

Mayor Sly James and The Kansas City Star and all kinds of people and organizations have come out for this new, single terminal, more-than-one-billion-dollar-boondoggle of an airport, saying, now it's "fiscally responsible" (it's anything but) and the right thing to do and the way to go forward with progress and the city. They also claim it will be just as convenient as our current airport and terminals.

To which I and a lot of us out here promptly say "bunk."

Think about this.

If, God forbid, the "New KCI" people and vote wins this coming week, we would get, yes, a single terminal airport. Sure, it will blow through more than 1 billion dollars that we don't need to and shouldn't spend and it will make flying in and out of Kansas City far more expensive and it's grossly, fiscally and environmentally irresponsible but there's one more thing.

We would get that one, single security check in.

Think how that works at other airports.

Think of the lines, the long, long lines just to get to security, that one security check in at all those other airports. Then think of waiting to get through that security.

We don't have that now. With our current terminals, we don't have those abominable long lines and long, long waits.

And Mayor James and the Star and others are going to tell us it will be just as convenient?

That there won't be long lines?

Really?

And people are going to fall for that?

Vote NO Tuesday, November 7 on Question 1.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Link:

Sven Erik Alstrom

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

Full Court Press From the "New KCI" Folks

Yes sir, there's a virtual "full court press" going on just now, this week, from the people and groups pushing for the more than one billion dollar boondoggle that is the "new KCI" campaign.

On KCUR, 89.3 FM this morning, Steve Kraske is going to throw out his one sided support for it on his program "Up to Date" at 11 am. It is our local NPR station and you wish they'd be impartial and non-partisan, since they're a news site, mostly but Mr. Kraske has gone along with the newspaper, the Star, and so many other local celebrities and supports it. I'm hoping for some good, probing questions today on the show, so it isn't just a fully, one-sided prop job for this nonsense.

Then, tomorrow night, our own Kansas City Star is hosting a town hall on KCI. Even the name of it shows they're not being a non-partisan news site:  "Why we need a new KCI." They aren't even pretending to be reporting news and not taking sides. That is tomorrow night, again, at 7 pm at Union Station. From the sounds of it, they're to be in what is not a terribly large room because when you register for it online, it says seating is limited. I fear and expect they don't want too large a crowd lest they get too many opposing views from the audience. Here's hoping.

So for all the more rational and fiscally and environmentally responsible people out there who see and know this "new KCI" for the absurd, again, boondoggle that it is, by all means, please phone in today to Mr. Kraske's show. Let's hold the supporters "feet to the fire", so to speak. Let's point out what an outrageous, expensive, ridiculous and yes, again, irresponsible move this would be.

Then, let's do it again, this time, in person, by going to the Star's town hall tomorrow evening. Come loaded with good, hard, fair, researched questions for them, too.



Links:

New KCI terminal may mean more flights, 

but not necessarily

New KCI terminal alone won't increase flight demand, 

say airline

​DOT data: Passenger traffic, airline revenue increasing 

at KCI

Representatives of Southwest Airlines urge caution 

on costly new KCI

The New KCI People Are Getting Desperate

Here in Brookside, we've gotten a large postcard nearly every day from the "Better KCI" group, pointing out why they think we should have a new, single terminal airport, even with it taking more than 1 billion dollars to do so.

Yesterday's postcard shows, as the headline says, that these people are getting desperate.

They've begun repeating the same, old, tired ideas now. Today was this.

All they could say today, with this postcard was that our current airport needs updates--tell us something we don't know---and that they would cost $500,000.

Let's put this in perspective.

First, suddenly $500,00 is a lot of money.

They want 1 billion dollars for this new, single terminal airport--actually, it will be more than 1 billion dollars, more than twice as much---but they're suddenly complaining about spending too much money.

Talk about trying to have it both ways. Wow.

So one half billion dollars is A LOT but more than one billion just ain't that much.

What utter, ridiculous nonsense.

Spending only one half of what they propose for a new airport, to get and keep what we need seems clearly very sensible. Why on Earth would or should we throw away good, very convenient, intelligent, already built buildings, modernize and update them and continue to use them?

It makes eminent sense.

On the postcard yesterday, they say: "Our airport was built in 1972 and it's served us well, but it's past our prime."

And that, right there ladies and gentlemen, is our problem. It is one of America's problems. We've seen it, repeatedly, down through decades and the short last century here in the US.

After about 40 or 50 years, we think we need to somehow "move on", tear down a building--in this case, buildings--and press forward with progress somehow. All across Europe, they have functioning buildings, hundreds of years old but we have to tear ours down, build new, start all over again and begin anew.

This is fiscally irresponsible. And that's what's wrong with this plan of theirs. It is fiscally irresponsible. Actually, to be clear and accurate, it is grossly irresponsible, fiscally. That's ignoring the fact that it's also environmentally irresponsible. I won't even touch on that.

There is no reason in the world why we cannot update, modernize and yes, improve our existing 3 terminals at our airport, get the security we need and continue to use these buildings, these facilities.

I say again, the Airport Authority, our Airport Authority has been conniving for a new airport and for years. To get it, they have ignored and neglected maintenance and not worked to get restaurants at these existing terminals, all so they could say today and for the last several years that we needed a new airport, a new building and that what we have isn't working and doesn't work.

Again, I repeat, look at the statistics. Our airport keeps increasing the numbers of flights, month after month and year over year yet they say it isn't working and we need a new airport.

​DOT data: Passenger traffic, 

airline revenue increasing at KCI

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, all you people at "Better KCI"?  Mayor James? Airport Authority? Cut it out. Stop lying to us. Stop misrepresenting the truth. Stop redefining the way things are up there at the airport because even given how badly the Airport Authority is running and not maintaining it, it's still increasing in flights, statistically. 

So with, actually, some good and decent and fair and intelligent updating and modernizing---and for far, far less money---we good have that stellar airport you keep describing.

And we'd save hundreds of millions of dollars doing it, in the meantime.

Vote no---a resounding, responsible NO--on Question 1 next week, November 7.

Links:

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Friends of KCI

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Even Jolie Justus Gets In On the Lies About a New Airport

On our local NPR station today, the national program "Here and Now" reported from out of this station and our city. It was great to hear.

On it, even our own local representative and councilwoman, Jolie Justus was on it, who I usually always like to hear and, up to now, always support and agree with.

For this first time in disagreement, however, she came down squarely for this billion dollar boondoggle of a new, single terminal airport.

Not a surprise but a disappointment, nonetheless.

One of the things she said is that our huge Cerner Company, with all that business and all those employees, is a huge, one of the biggest, users of the airport and that, if we don't update it, we run the risk of that company leaving.

To which I say

What utter nonsense.

Who of us has trouble leaving our city byt the current airport, with its configuration?  Just who, exactly?

I've never heard of anyone having that issue, Cerner employee or no.

Then, she claimed that, with all the architects in town, and she said we have a lot, per capita, they might have difficulty getting a flight and getting out of town, too. She went as far as to suggest they might have to take as long as two days to get out of town if we don't update the airport.

What undisguised, ridiculous, ludicrous assertions.

I point out again, our current airport, even as poorly managed as it is by our Airport Authority, we still, month over month and year over year, both, have nothing but increased in the numbers of people flying out of our airport, KCI, MCI.

That doesn't sound like too horrible or difficult a situation or airport, does it to you?

Side note: Do keep in mind that the law firm she works for, Shook, Hardy and Bacon, had for a client Burns & McDonnell, who had been fighting for the work at the airport, too. It was found that, legally, in a courtroom, that Ms. Justus had no conflict of interest but but the relationship is there, like it or not, see link below.

Anyway, the lies about the airport and getting a new one, continue, virtually unabated, sadly.

Link:

UPDATED: Airport-Related Ethics Complaint Against Councilwoman 

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.

Another Day, Another Push by The Star for the Airport Boondoggle

Okay, the sun came up again this morning so naturally, our own Kansas City Star had to print yet another article on why we should vote for the billion dollar plus boondoggle that would be a bright, shiny, new single terminal airport.

KCI is unfit for the security needs 

of an uncertain tomorrow

So okay.

Fine.

It's not fit for the post 9/11 security world.

Then fix it. Because it is "fixable." It is doable.

instead of throwing it away and walking away from it, fix it. 

Have terminal B act as the entrance point, use the gates there and then have walkways going out, for the rest of the available flights, to the other two terminals, A and C.

It would be far, far more fiscally responsible and would still retain its convenience. It would also be vastly more environmentally responsible, no small thing.

And if one more person says "It won't be paid with taxes!", I'm going to scream.

If this gets voted through, as it shouldn't, the prices of our flights out there are going to mushroom. Let's not kid ourselves. We still pay for it. We can't be naive about that.

The whole idea that we can't update and modernize and improve what's there is utter, complete nonsense and grossly, fiscally irresponsible, at least, to say nothing of the environmental irresponsibility.

Then there's this claim, I hear and see repeatedly:

"It would cost just as much to make repairs to the airport as it would to build a new one."

Nonsense. Again, nonsense.

How on this green Earth could walking completely away from functioning facilities, functioning, working buildings and building completely new, starting all over again, be remotely less expensive than working with what we have? In what parallel, upside down, topsy turvy world is that true?

It has not been maintained in the last several, too many years. The Airport Authority out there has been Jonesing for a bright, shiny, very expensive new toy so they haven't maintained it and kept it up at all! So instead of throwing it away and walking away from it, LET'S DEMAND THEY MAINTAIN IT, update it, sure, make it safe for 21st Century security, everything. BUT FIX IT, don't throw it away.

It's not just the intelligent thing to do, it's the responsible thing to do.

Because it's sure not so in this world. The Star themselves, though years ago, did print and give air to one architectural firm's plan and study with how to reuse our existing facilities and terminals. No one seems to remember that.

Another KCI renovation option surfaces

Oh, yeah.

Vote no on question 1 November 7.

Save KCI

For stupidity and irresponsibility, this is right up there with the repeated and seemingly never ending idea and talk of walking away from Kauffman Stadium and building another, downtown.

The Never-Ending 

Stadium Boondoggle

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.