Posts
Thankfully, Kansas City Cameron Lamb Riots Never Happened
33 minutes ago
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Thursday, April 15, 2021
Great, Even Important Question About Our Defense Budget
President Biden proposed increasing, yet again, our nation's annual defense budget--but then followed that up by saying we're getting out of Afghanistan. Representative Ro Khanna asks an excellent question today out in social media.
“The Pentagon increases make no sense. If you’re ending the forever war in Afghanistan … then why are we increasing, at the same time, the defense budget?” --Rep. Ro Khanna @RoKhanna
Thursday, July 5, 2018
What People Don't Understand About Our National Defense Spending
What too many people, too many Americans don't understand or realize about our obscene, absurd, very bloated and extremely wasteful defense spending.
It's actually making us weaker, as a nation.
Friday, June 15, 2018
First Lie of the New Single Terminal Airport Confirmed
This hit yesterday in the Star.
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.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
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.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Vote, Kansas City! And Vote NO! On Question 1!
So today is the day, Kansas City! Get out there and vote! And make sure, on Question 1, calling for the more-than-one-billion-dollar-boondoggle, MAKE SURE you VOTE NO! Thank you, in advance!
And just as a reminder, here are lots of reasons why we should all VOTE NO!
The 500 Million Dollar Lie About the Airport We Keep Hearing
A Less Convenient, More Congested, Extremely Expensive and Completely Unnecessary Single Terminal Airport
Every Day Now, Some New Lie About a New Airport
Why We Should VOTE NO on Question 1 Tomorrow On A New Single-Terminal Airport
Suddenly, A New Airport Is "Fiscally Responsible"
The New KCI People Are Getting Desperate
Full Court Press From the "New KCI" Folks
Now the New KCI People Are Trying to Threaten US
KCI/MCI: Still Convenient, Still Beautiful
And don't forget all these facts and statistics, folks. Our airport keeps getting MORE and yet MORE traffic, month over month, year over year, AS IT IS. As badly maintained and managed as our airport is now, by our Airport Authority, we STILL KEEP GETTING MORE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH IT. Face it, they're coming here, to Kansas City. They're not coming here for a new, gleaming airport.
KCI Passenger Growth Continued
in November
KCI Airport Passenger Traffic Up
for 13th Straight Month
Kansas City International Airport
Reports 37th Consecutive Month of
PASSENGER GROWTH
Friday, November 3, 2017
Now the New KCI People Are Trying to Threaten US
From the Star yesterday:
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.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
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
Saturday, October 28, 2017
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.
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 Passenger Growth Continued
in November
KCI Airport Passenger Traffic Up
for 13th Straight Month
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.
Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions
Friends of KCI
Save KCI - Home | Facebook
Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter
Thursday, October 26, 2017
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:
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
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Every Day Now, Some New Lie About a New Airport
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.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
