And every time someone trots out the horse to beat on, we should repsond like Fang and list all the things those decisions helped make happen.
Face it, progress costs money. Some imply that if a different funding mechanism had been used, all this could have been done painlessly. IIRC there was a small window of opportunity, postponing 10+ years for the perfect financing would have been the KC way.

Lists like that are disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and more or less the internet discussion forum equivalent of explosive diarrhea. They may look impressive, and there's sure a lot of it, but they don't pass the smell test. To imply that every single development, redevelopment, business opening, etc., that has happened in the greater downtown area since 2005 may not have happened but for the panacea that is a few square blocks of mediocre bars and restaurants is laughable. It's like falling down the rabbit hole with AKP. Maybe those developments would have happened. On the other hand, maybe not. But maybe. Or maybe not. But you never know, it's possible. But the alternative is also possible.

For me, this is the summary that rings most true. Yes, there were likely flaws in the structure developed. Those in the business of creating such structures need to take note and do a better job in the future, but do something!

Mean, you say Fangs list rings hollow? Dude.... P & L (and the Sprint Center) opened up downtown KC to hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise never set foot in the place and has made viable much of what Fang has listed and the opportunity effects ripple out in rings from downtown.

The default position of the majority, was that downtown KC was where of a dangerous zone where some poor souls went to work by day, and fools went to play by night, with a few thousand artists and otherwise broken souls lived.

12.8 million annually? That makes this one of the most successful ad campaigns I've ever witnessed.

I don't know about revenue or where to find that data, but here's the NYT map by census tract:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

Well they are all here now. Including p&l. As a city shouldn't we be looking for the best way to maximize that investment and look forward rather than rehash this tired argument over and over looking backwards? Sure when new projects are proposed its smart to remind ourselves of past success/failure and lessons learned but that's not what is going on here.

Well said.

I don't entirely disagree, but plastering a list of every single damn thing that has happened and speculating that it must all be because of P&L is a joke. There was plenty of stuff going on before P&L. Plenty of stuff would have happened without it. Probably not everything, but what's the point in speculating?

Anyway, my only point here is that as long as the issue persists, public perception has essentially doomed large, city-sponsored projects. Because of that, I don't think it's fair to characterize the ongoing subsidy as a dead horse only being beaten by dumdums who just don't get it or whatever. It is actively causing public perception problems, and as long a that's the case, you can forget about fancy hotels or surface parking infill or anything else, if the city's on the hook for it. And that actively sucks ass.



And now the default position of the majority is that P&L may be a cool place to go, but there's nowhere to park, you might get shot, and the city screwed the whole project up (just like they screw everything up), it's a huge drain on the budget (true or not), and there's no way they're going to stand for the city screwing them over and wasting their money again on any other big project ever, never, nope, case closed.



Again, I'm not trying to rehash the argument. I just think it's silly to call the ongoing subsidy a dead horse when it is actively having such a detrimental effect on the city's ability to get shit done. It has essentially taken away a powerful redevelopment tool.

Mean, you seem to be caught in the "Funkhouser Affect", this morning.

As I see it, the problem here is the determination to point out how bad, wrong, harmful a decision was, rather than to note the positive outcomes.

I really don't get it.

My point is this should be one of those lessons you live and learn and hopefully the current and future councils learn it well. This project had little discussion (compared to many other lesser issues that had way less impact) by the council. The numbers were never seriously questioned. Alternative ways of financing were not explored. No discussion about what if the tax collections are not there. In other words how this project was handled by the mayor and therest of the council is not the way a major project like this should be handled.



But don't ignore the negative outcomes.

Union station was once thought of in the same light. Now it makes money without a subsidy. Just an example of a project that was dismissed out of hand by the metro and is now successful given time to mature. (Btw I would have called union station a success even if it did need a city subsidy just as I think p&l is a success with a subsidy)

Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.

The only people I know of who complain about the P&L are people who would never come downtown no matter what was there and people who are upset that a touristy, Disneyfied, entertainment district supplanted what was quality but extremely slow organic growth. Without a one-fell swoop plan for however many square blocks, I think we'd still be staring at parking lots where the P&L sits. The timing couldn't have been better if you ask me. We got a massive scale project built just prior to the recession that will be around for years and years. The entire package, including H&R, Sprint, Midland, Mainstreet, and P&L, has completely transformed our downtown. If you were to ask the average person to name one feature of downtown KC, they might say P&L more than anything, over the KCPA, Liberty, Union Station, Crossroads, etc. That's just a guess, so take it for what it is. Sprint Center would also be up there.

As mentioned earlier, one should always use past situations to inform future decisions, but I still can't get beyond the fact that the P&L continues to be a benefit and a bargain for the city. Knowing what we know now, and having what we now have, we wouldn't make such a deal in the future unless it added something we are sorely lacking in and were willing to pay for in the future. We don't do a good job of outlining all of the positive things that have happened, sometimes directly as a result of the P&L. Instead, we pretend that KC was in a great state prior to 2005 and was poised to have some magical influx of capital for private, tax revenue generating, buildings full of artisans and fortune 500 companies. Sometimes, desperate times call for desperate measures, and P&L was one of those hail Mary's. Now that we have tied the game, we can be much more conservative with the next play, but the hail Mary was still a good call.

To me, there is public perception, and there is perception of public perception. I think too many people use anecdotal impressions as a sign of how most people think. These massive scale projects are generally the brain child of just a handful of people who have the will or the interest to do something. So, when a small number of folks complain the loudest about how much of a burden the P&L is, it becomes the perception of public perception, not unlike the Save the Plaza bandwagon. Regardless of what the actual perception is, there is always the opportunity to be the loudest proponents of new projects downtown. As you indicated, perception goes quite a long way to getting things done. There seems to be a fatalistic willingness on the part of many to accept P&L as a failure, even if it is an overall win for the city, and that is the perception that is hurting more than anything else.

The Power & Light District was opened right about the time this country entered its deepest recesssion in the last 70 years. Unemployment is still 8.3 percent. The casual dining business experienced a three year slump and commerical real estate went into a tailspin.

Those who choose to discuss "results", while ignoring factors that have a huge impact on the results, do so at the risk of their own credibility.

My guess is in five to eight years the P&L will be regarded as a local treasure and the KC haters will have moved on to something new.

parking.

That's old

It's pretty simple. KCP called the issue a dead horse. That bothered me. It isn't a dead horse, it's a constant freaking PR albatross. It just stinks like a dead horse.

What should we do? Spend a few mil on a campaign to correct peoples notions of the net gains/losses associated with the rebirth of downtown KC?

Or, do we just move to Denver?

I figure we make damn sure to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. If this means reminding ourselves every year when the Star does their annual "ONOES THE P&L SUBSIDY!" story, then obviously I'm prepared to do that.

They're going to keep doing it every year, and I won't accept it as dead-horse-beating unless the P&L no longer requires a subsidy, and they continue to print stories every year reminding everyone that it required a subsidy for X years. At that point, fine, dead horse. Until then, it's still a problem, and pretending it isn't doesn't really do anyone any good.

I actually kind of agree with this. The P&L financing and it's aftermath have caused the city to be cautious and careful about proceeding with later projects like the streetcar and the convention hotel. That's a good thing. I think it remains to be seen whether it has cost KC future projects as we're not removed from the lending crunch or the lingering effects of the Funk.

The P&L/Sprint was too critical to putz around and lose. KC can afford to be more discerning now.

How about an onoes a highway subsidy story?

If the past council had taken time to discuss the project and its ramifications who knows. It may not have gotten built. Built but with a different financing makeup. Or built the way it was. If the third happened at least the public would know going in that there was a good chance that it would happen and what steps the city would have to take if it did. The way it is now is the past council made a decision and let the future councils worry about the negatives that were bound to happen.

Success or failure. That will always be part of the discussion depending on what is looked at. In fact it can be a success in one area but a failure in another. Think of it as a movie. It costs $200,000,000 to make and it is a great movie with a pocketfull of academy award noms. On the other hand it totals $50,000,000 at the box office. Is it a success or a failure?