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.
KCI Passengers Up 8.8 Percent in February
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:
Posts
